Rejoicing and Praising Jesus Christ Forum!Really, what would Jesus do?HOGCALLER wrote:Aineo
Per the site you linked to: \Gov"ern*ment\, n. [F. gouvernement. See Govern.] 1. The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation; as, civil, church, or family government.
This is what I said: “Thus far, God has been directly involved in the establishment of only two governments on earth.”
Well, if that is what you want to believe that is up to you. My Bible says God established all authorities. Do you still maintain that God did not directly establish a “government” in Eden? And, therefore, is it still your contention “that the first "government" was not established until after cities were built and men started to govern other men” (that was after the flood)? And do you still maintain that “the first “government” or authority was organized after men made other men subservient to their will” and, thus, that this is the first government on earth that God DIRECTLY ESTABLISHED and do you still maintain that the purpose of that government DIRECTLY ESTABLISHED by God was to promote oppression?
Yep. I am not trying to play “gotcha”, therefore, I asked for your definitions of the words under discussion. We use words to communicate ideas or meanings. And sometimes, words convey multiple ideas and meanings. Therefore, to avoid confusion and misunderstanding, it is good to have agreed-upon definitions of words or, at the very least, there is the need to be aware of each other’s differing definitions so as to avoid confusion and unnecessary conflict. You are certainly entitled to your definitions of words, but it is only fair that I know what they are so that I too can use them or can avoid them by simply choosing other words.
The above is a perfect example. I stated God directly established a government in Eden. You replied, “Adam and Eve were not a government, the first “government” or authority was organized after men made other men subservient to their will.” But by definition, what God established in Eden, “The act of governing; the exercise of authority; the administration of laws; control; direction; regulation”, was in fact a “government”. You next reply, “Yes, [there] was an authority [in] the Garden of Eden - God.” But you still seem refuse to recognize it (“the exercise of authority”) as a government. Obviously, your definition of government and my definition of government are different; therefore, we need to agree upon a definition, don't you agree?
My parents had authority over me until I was 18, my parents are not a government. My employer had authority over me from 8 to 5, but my ex-employer was not a government. The governments that have authority over me are the city, county, state, and Federal governments, which according to Scripture were established by God. “Ordained” can mean ‘to invest or convey authority’ or it can mean “To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained. See Synonyms at dictate.” For the purposes of this discussion, which is it?
All of them. Many points and counterpoints will be made as this discussion continues. In an effort to try to maintain some semblance of order, let’s refer to your argument or line of thinking as: 1. God is fully, directly and knowingly responsible for it all. And let’s refer to my argument or line of thinking as: 2. God is not responsible for it all, but only temporarily allows it. Fair enough?
You say:
“I fail to see what defining words has to do with your thesis.” I understand you do not "see", but if you will be a little less cantankerous you may "see" in time.
You say:
“The citizen of any country [is] under subjection to the governing authority of that country.” Is that subjection total and unlimited? Or rather, is it limited or relative subjection?
You say:
“The governing authority is established by force or a constitution.” And earlier you said, “all governments are instituted by God.” Are you saying God DIRECTLY has/is/will authorize/institute/establish any and all governments? Does your statement include Nazi Germany? Does it include Communist China? Does it include the Taliban régime of Afghanistan? Does it include Saddam Hussein's régime in Iraq? Does it include the ayatollahs of Iran? Does it include the Pol Pot régime in Cambodia? Does it include "all the kingdoms" mentioned at Luke 4:5?
You say:
“And God has ordained the establishment of all secular authorities that have authority over its citizens, according to Paul.” Does that mean "And God has [invested or conveyed authority] or rather does it mean, "And God has [prearranged unalterably; predestined] the establishment of all secular authorities”?
Let me provide a little background and establish some groundwork before presenting my next argument.
God has four cardinal or main qualities: love, power, wisdom and justice. Just as an artist mixes and blends primary colors to produce many shades and hues of color, God’s qualities can be mixed and blended with differing results. For example: love plus wisdom and justice = mercy and mixed in different proportions they = jealousy. God is the supreme being of the universe and as such we speak of him as being "all-powerful" and "omniscient" and so on. And yet, even though he is "all-powerful", each and every exercise of God's power does not result in the utter destruction of everything. That is because His exercise of power is blended with or offset by His love, wisdom and justice so that the result is just right and does not violate His other qualities and attributes.
Additionally, there are many things and qualities in which God can be spoken of as being the "All" of, for he is the ultimate "Source" of everything good. And so it is with authority. None of God's creatures are robots or automatons. Each creature has been “allowed”, endowed with or delegated a certain measure of authority. We normally refer to that as free will or free choice. Free will is the power of making free choices that are unconstrained by an agency such as fate or divine will. God is the “Source” of all authority; therefore there can be no other authority unless God “allows it”. That explains Jesus’ comment to Pontius Pilate at John 19:11 (compare John 10:18). But man’s authority is not total and unlimited, rather it is subjective, relative and limited by the boundaries that God himself ordains, institutes, establishes (by His government). For the common good, there must be boundaries. Hence, free will was to be regulated by the rule of law (again, by His government). Otherwise, anarchy would result, wouldn’t you agree? Again, if you did not catch it, I just said that it is only by God’s allowance, by God’s indulgence, that any other authority could be established, instituted, ordained and that He instituted, established, ordained that “other authority” (man’s limited authority) within the framework of His own government instituted, established, ordained in the Garden of Eden. That is why the Amplified Bible renders Romans 13:1 this way: “LET EVERY person be loyally subject to the governing (civil) authorities. For there is no authority except from God [by His permission, His sanction], and those that exist do so by God's appointment.” Are you now beginning to “see” why the definition of the words “subjection” and “ordained” comes into play? In addition to this, there are other examples in the Bible of the attribution to God of things that He only ALLOWS to happen. One example is His dealings with Pharaoh. Compare Exodus 4:21,23; 7:1-5; 8:15,19,32.
Because you did not reply to my specific request that you define or explain whether or not "subjection" was total and unlimited or relative and limited, at this point, I must assume. Based on the tenor of your comments and arguments, I assume that your definition of “subjection” requires total and unlimited obedience. In addition, I must assume, on the same basis as above, that your reason for believing that way is predicated by your definition of "ordained" (To prearrange unalterably; predestine), again, leading you to believe in the “absolute authority” of earthly governments over their subjects. If I am wrong about what you believe, please correct me. And then understand, please, that there are legitimate reasons for my asking you to explain your beliefs. I am not trying to play ‘gotcha’ or to be a smart aleck. Whether or not you actually believe that way, let’s see what results from those beliefs.
In the 15th century, a certain Peter von Hagenbach was put on trial for initiating a reign of terror in the area of Europe over which he had authority. His defense, that he was merely following the orders of his lord, the Duke of Burgundy, was rejected. He was convicted and put to death.
Let us reason on the situation from the point of view, possibly your point of view, mentioned above. First, he was under orders from his superior, a superior who had been “instituted, established, ordained” by God. Further, Hagenbach was under obligation, according to your (possibly) interpretation of Romans 13:1, to be in total “subjection” to his “governing authority”. Therefore, he, in order to disobey his “governing authority”, would also have to disobey God. Now that's quite a choice! Oh, excuse me. He really had no choice in the matter for God had also ordained his “way” and his “steps”. Talk about your no-win situation!
Again, let's consider the implications of that belief. Please follow this link to a well-known Scripture and consider the various wordings and the meaning they convey. Either the above understanding, point of view, belief (your possible belief) is not correct or that Scripture is not correct! Either God "ordains" (predestines) each individual's "way" and "steps" and thereby HE DETERMINES who is saved and who is not saved, or He does not predestine or “ordain” us in that sense and our salvation truly is BASED ON WHAT WE DO as an individual in response to the savior and salvation provided by God. It cannot be both ways!
Now, let me explain it again. The rebellion in Eden resulted from an improper exercise or an abuse of free will and free choice on the part of Satan (speaking through the serpent), Adam and Eve in overstepping the limits of their authority and in rejecting God's authority or government over them. That is the real issue at hand now and ever since the Garden of Eden. God's sovereignty (right to rule and the rightfulness or righteousness of his way of ruling) is at issue. God's vindication of his good name and reputation is at issue. Mankind's obedience to God is at issue. Mankind's loyalty to God and to his government is at issue (Proverbs 27:11; Job 1:9).
Some of these issues are again highlighted and expounded upon in the book of Job (the events in Job predate the exodus). And in Job for the first time we begin to clearly see the issues involved and to understand who is actually behind man’s problems and sufferings, Satan and not God. And we also begin to get an idea of why God has not yet brought an end to Satan and the world of wicked mankind (Exodus 9:13-16). In Job, as in Eden, Satan never directly challenges God's power. What he does, however, is slander God by indicating that God must bribe Job to serve him. And at the same time he calls into question the loyalty and motives of, not only Job, but also all of God's intelligent creatures. In Job for the first time we begin to understand that, and also why, God is allowing time for Satan and mankind to prove or disprove their ability to rule the earth apart from God. God is allowing enough time to make certain every possible issue and complaint against God will come out and then for a full, undeniable and unquestionable answer to all of those issues and all of Satan's challenges, slanders, and lies to be demonstrated ONCE FOR ALL TIME. Therefore, God has “temporarily allowed” Satan dominion over the earth and, in turn, Satan allows men to exercise dominion and to setup governments (Luke 4:5-8). Man, under Satan's direction and control (1 John 5:19; Revelation 12:9), is being allowed time to try every form, type and scheme of government, every possible philosophy of life, every form of religion and worship, etc. (Revelation 13:1-8) and to see if they truly can decide for themselves “good and bad” to their betterment or to their detriment.
And then in Daniel (check the cross references) we are given an unmistakable insight into God's point of view on these issues in the report about Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. Later in Daniel we find a description of “angels” or “princes” fighting against God’s interests and people while also engaged in manipulating the nations (Daniel 10:13,20,21). Please answer me this: If God "ordained", in the sense that you mean it, those ancient nations and governments, then why did God’s angels fight against them and their spirit backers?
As I pointed out earlier man was not created with the ability to be self-governing, that is to say, to be totally independent of God’s authority and government. Therefore, God put in place a government over men. That government has not been overthrown. However, to facilitate the outworking of his stated purpose, expressed will, the need arose to establish a single nation to produce the “seed” promised at Genesis 3:15. Once that "seed" had been produced and had been "bruised in the heel" the ancient nation of Israel was no longer required for the outworking of God's purposes. Coupled with its obsolescence are its apostasy from true worship and its rebellion against and rejection of God's rulership as evidenced by their rejection of God's appointed king and their own efforts to establish their own nation with their own king (John 6:14,15). Therefore, the ancient nation of Israel was rejected by God and was replaced by a spiritual nation, the "Israel of God" (Matthew 21:43; Hebrews 8:8,9; 10:16; Galatians 6:16). The subjects (citizens) of that government (nation) are drawn from "all the nations" (Matthew 28:19) including "every tribe and tongue and people and nation " (Revelation 5:9,10). That means that from Jesus death on till now, every single person living on the face of the earth at any given point in time is already our brother or is our potential brother. The implications of that are inescapable.
Is what I just presented a correct and proper understanding? You may say no. But before you do, consider this:
“A careful review of all the information available goes to show that, until the time of Marcus Aurelius, no Christian became a soldier; and no soldier, after becoming a Christian, remained in military service.”—The Rise of Christianity (London, 1947), E. W. Barnes, p. 333.
“We who were filled with war, and mutual slaughter, and every wickedness, have each through the whole earth changed our warlike weapons,—our swords into ploughshares, and our spears into implements of tillage,—and we cultivate piety, righteousness, philanthropy, faith, and hope, which we have from the Father Himself through Him who was crucified.”—Justin Martyr in “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (2nd century C.E.), The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids, Mich.; reprint of 1885 Edinburgh edition), edited by A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. I, p. 254.
“They refused to take any active part in the civil administration or the military defence of the empire. . . . it was impossible that the Christians, without renouncing a more sacred duty, could assume the character of soldiers, of magistrates, or of princes.”—History of Christianity (New York, 1891), Edward Gibbon, pp. 162, 163.
“Early Christianity was little understood and was regarded with little favor by those who ruled the pagan world. . . . Christians refused to share certain duties of Roman citizens. . . . They would not hold political office.”—On the Road to Civilization, A World History (Philadelphia, 1937), A. Heckel and J. Sigman, pp. 237, 238.
“The Christians stood aloof and distinct from the state, as a priestly and spiritual race, and Christianity seemed able to influence civil life only in that manner which, it must be confessed, is the purest, by practically endeavouring to instil more and more of holy feeling into the citizens of the state.”—The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander, translated from German by H. J. Rose, p. 168.
If my view and understanding is incorrect, please explain to me, Why is it that the Early Christians are noted for practicing that very belief?
Again, that spiritual nation, the “true Israel of God”, the subjects of which are found within the borders of all nations, is the only nation with which God now has dealings. Why would God institute a government or nation "of the people, by the people, for the people" when he already has a government and a nation already in place with an appointed king sitting on its throne? Why would he ignore what he caused to be recorded at Jeremiah 10:23? If you or I are incapable of even directing our own footsteps (self governance) how is it that a man we elect suddenly becomes able to not only direct his own footsteps but ours also? In light of the issues raised at the rebellion in Eden why would God be involved in instituting any form of government that involves self governance (deciding for ourselves what is good and bad)? That is Satan’s side of the issue! . . .Oh yeah! That certainly explains why the nations of the earth now tout "democracy" (Luke 4:5-8). All true Christian’s are subjects of and ambassadors for that "spiritual nation and its king" (see post above). And they "give unto God what is God's", that is absolute, total and unlimited subjection, allegiance and loyalty to God and His established government.
Nope, my part of this discussion ceases now.
I will not be drawn into any discussion where one has to define every word to believe what God has revealed in His word.
I will let someone else play in your sandbox.
| View Parent Message View dfilename Return Home |