Divine Right

[Charles]

I don't think you know what a qualified answer is. I gave very specific reasons for my answer.


I did answer. I told you that I use a contextualised approach when interpreting all scripture, and I will continue to do so until someone demonstrates to me how this is improper, which you certainly have not done, and likely never will do.

I'm done, Chuck. The Bible warns us about the perils of arguing with a fool.

You did not answer pointing to specifics as to why the text seemingly says the opposite of what you want it to say. And you never answered why this does not apply to other parts that constitute the context. It may be good enough for you. But not for me.

[Sparko]

When so many people (i.e. outside of your salvation club) keep telling you you're wrong, including your own children, perhaps you should get the message.

It hasn't stopped you yet.

[Mountain Man]

When so many people (i.e. outside of your salvation club) keep telling you you're wrong, including your own children, perhaps you should get the message.

My children didn't tell me I was wrong, you idiot, and certainly not about this. Read what I wrote. I was saying that Chuckles argues like a child who repeatedly asks questions that have already been answered simply because he doesn't like the answers.

And "so many people" means you and Chuckles - big deal! - and until either of you actually trouble yourselves to prove me wrong, I will continue to laugh in your ignorant little faces.

[stfoskey15]

Yes, Paul would have disagreed with the American Revolution. That said, Paul is not saying that we should always obey the authorities, or that the authorities will always do what is right. It should be obvious that, being human, the authorities will not always do the right thing (Rom. 3:23); also, Paul says we should avoid sinning (Rom. 6:1-2). Is Paul contradicting himself, or should we perhaps not read every statement as an absolute devoid of context?

What about feudalism? Serfs weren't sinning by being serfs, but they were also oppressed. Assuming the serfs are Christian, how would you suggest they respond in such a situation? Let's pretend they've also voiced their complaints with the nobles, but the nobles ignored them.
Or what about a communist society where people are assigned jobs that aren't immoral, but that they don't have a choice in? Also, in this hypothetical situation, the communists are tolerant of religion.

My children didn't tell me I was wrong, you idiot, and certainly not about this. Read what I wrote. I was saying that Chuckles argues like a child who repeatedly asks questions that have already been answered simply because he doesn't like the answers.

And "so many people" means you and Chuckles - big deal! - and until either of you actually trouble yourselves to prove me wrong, I will continue to laugh in your ignorant little faces.

Why do you always invent names for people? It doesn't further your argument and makes it look like you simply like to attack people in online discussion.

[Charles]

And "so many people" means you and Chuckles - big deal! - and until either of you actually trouble yourselves to prove me wrong, I will continue to laugh in your ignorant little faces.

I promise to prove you wrong once you give me what I asked you for. Let me repeat:

Why does Romans not allow for any exceptions? It clearly says: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” There is not a single word about Christians not falling under the scope of this. Not a single word. Why?

Romans clearly states that: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” There is not a single word about the possibility of any type of government not being instituted by God. Why?

If you establish exceptions in these cases then why not in other context? All humans are sinners, or does "all" not mean "all". Jesus died for "all" people, but "all" does not mean "all"?

Give a specific answer and not some general talk about context. You never did answer in a satisfying way. Why do you seemingly contradict the Bible in this case?

[Mountain Man]

Why do you always invent names for people? It doesn't further your argument and makes it look like you simply like to attack people in online discussion.

A show of calculated contempt for a particularly stubborn and thickheaded opponent is a long and honored tradition in public debates. See the following for a comprehensive analysis of the topic:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/madmad.php

[Sparko]

I promise to prove you wrong once you give me what I asked you for. Let me repeat:

Why does Romans not allow for any exceptions? It clearly says: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” There is not a single word about Christians not falling under the scope of this. Not a single word. Why?

Romans clearly states that: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.” There is not a single word about the possibility of any type of government not being instituted by God. Why?

If you establish exceptions in these cases then why not in other context? All humans are sinners, or does "all" not mean "all". Jesus died for "all" people, but "all" does not mean "all"?

Give a specific answer and not some general talk about context. You never did answer in a satisfying way. Why do you seemingly contradict the Bible in this case?

As you have been told, the conditions are given in the verse, that the authorities are meant to do God's will. and we are supposed to obey God, so as long as they are doing what God wants then we are to obey them. But if they don't do what God wants them to do, then we don't have to obey THEM but we still have to obey God. So the ultimate authority we need to obey is God, not man. As long as the government does what God wants then we are to obey them.

Acts 5:29 New Living Translation
But Peter and the apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than any human authority"

Clear now?

[Charles]

As you have been told, the conditions are given in the verse, that the authorities are meant to do God's will. and we are supposed to obey God, so as long as they are doing what God wants then we are to obey them. But if they don't do what God wants them to do, then we don't have to obey THEM but we still have to obey God. So the ultimate authority we need to obey is God, not man. As long as the government does what God wants then we are to obey them.

Acts 5:29 New Living Translation
But Peter and the apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than any human authority"

Clear now?

No, because the text says: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." So those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Who is Sparko to say they are not, when Paul says they are? And the text says: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” Who is Sparko to say I should not subject?

[Sparko]

No, because the text says: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." So those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Who is Sparko to say they are not, when Paul says they are? And the text says: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” Who is Sparko to say I should not subject?

You are just trying to isolate verses to play some silly "gotcha" game. Sorry but the bible isn't something where you can take a phrase out of context.

God institutes the authorities - TO DO HIS WILL. TO BE HIS SERVANTS.

But obviously not all authorities do that. They disobey his will. They are not his servants.


13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.

You want to just read that part and ignore the following:


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. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

And you want to ignore other parts of the bible like Acts 5:29

If you are to be afraid if you do wrong, what if the RULER does wrong? He should be even more afraid because he has to answer to God.

So sorry Charles but your little cherry-picking gotcha game won't fly.

[Charles]

You are just trying to isolate verses to play some silly "gotcha" game. Sorry but the bible isn't something where you can take a phrase out of context.

God institutes the authorities - TO DO HIS WILL. TO BE HIS SERVANTS.

But obviously not all authorities do that. They disobey his will. They are not his servants.

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." Peter 2,18

[Sparko]

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." Peter 2,18

The authorities are the servants. Of God. As are we. We are to obey God as our master.

[Mountain Man]

"Servants, be subject to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the unjust." Peter 2,18

Nice try, Chuckles, but there is no way that verse can be construed to mean that we are to obey commands that are contrary to Scripture.

If you are treated unjustly then submit. If you are commanded you to disobey God then sorry, but "We must obey God rather than any human authority."

[Charles]

Nice try, Chuckles, but there is no way that verse can be construed to mean that we are to obey commands that are contrary to Scripture.

If you are treated unjustly then submit. If you are commanded you to disobey God then sorry, but "We must obey God rather than any human authority."

But that would contradict the idea that “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." It would imply that authorities not instituted by God would exist. Paul says that is not the case. Like I initially said this is confusing at best.

[Mountain Man]

So sorry Charles but your little cherry-picking gotcha game won't fly.

Next he's going to insist that because the Old Testament prescribes punishments for "if a man steals an ox" that women are therefore allowed to steal all the oxen they want with God's blessing. His arguments are that ignorant and narrow-minded.

[Terraceth]

No, because the text says: “For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God." So those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Who is Sparko to say they are not, when Paul says they are? And the text says: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities.” Who is Sparko to say I should not subject?

Again, as St. Chrysostom argued:

For there is no power, he says, but of God. What say you? It may be said; is every ruler then elected by God? This I do not say, he answers. Nor am I now speaking about individual rulers, but about the thing in itself. For that there should be rulers, and some rule and others be ruled, and that all things should not just be carried on in one confusion, the people swaying like waves in this direction and that; this, I say, is the work of God's wisdom. Hence he does not say, for there is no ruler but of God; but it is the thing he speaks of, and says, there is no power but of God. And the powers that be, are ordained of God. Thus when a certain wise man says, It is by the Lord that a man is matched with a woman he means this, God made marriage, and not that it is He that joins together every man that comes to be with a woman. For we see many that come to be with one another for evil, even by the law of marriage, and this we should not ascribe to God.

According to him, when Paul refers to the "authorities" (or "powers" in the quoted translation) in Romans 13:1-2, he is referring to the fact governing authorities exist has been instituted by God, rather than saying every individual government or ruler is instituted by God, so what Paul is doing here is rejecting the idea of anarchy.