Rollcall: Challenge for Preachers!

What SATAN meant for evil, GOD meant for good.

When Paul wrote Romans 13, Nero was in power. While Paul preached the channel of authority, he was under a tyrant. He even instructed to Timothy to pray for all men, especailly those in authority.

That does not mean he condoned the tyrant. And he did lead a holy (rebellion) when he preached a higher authority, Jesus Christ, and was arrested for it. In that case he submitted to God as authority and the powers that be at the same time. He obeyed God and preached the Gospel and he submitted to every ordinance of man when he did not RESIST when arrested. He, therefore, gave himself over to the powers that be. Sounds very similar to what Christ did as well.

Our founding fathers did the same. They trusted God and let chips fall where they may. Now you and I have the freedom to argue over whether they were correct in their motives and actions or not.

phil310

 

I will stand with you Bart as well as Dr. Dixon and all in the name of Jesus.

 

Do you have any kind of Biblical mandate for your challenge?

 

I agree somewhat Squire. The difference is though that the preachers were in the same pen with everyone else in the colony. It was not just following their elected leaders, they were actually leading.

 

"You are right, Christ did not resist, but that is another subject. It was in obedience to the plan of God not in obedience to Ceasar. Lets get this one straight quick. You talk about our founding fathers and liken them to the Lord Christ? What on earth do you mean? I don't mean to argue, just answer the question! Are you a Preacher? If so would you have stood against the tyrant? Do you have a Pastor? Would your Pastor have supported the rebellion? If so he cannot preach unlimited submission."
Thanks ------Bart

"Unlimited Submission" This is the first time "unlimited" came up in the question. I am for "limited" submission so long as the powers that be are protecting good and punishing evil.
No. I would not have stood with the tyrant King George III.

"You talk about our founding fathers and liken them to the Lord Christ? What on earth do you mean?"

Try reading Philippians 2:5-8

 

You act as though rebellion and submissiveness to the authorities are mutally exclusive things. It is possible to resist authority and be submissive at the same time. Jesus did it, Paul did it, John did it as just a few examples. Your question has the ring of a school yard enviroment, what is next are you going to triple dog dare everyone? Many of those original colonists did support the king, but that didn't make them cowards. I don't know what I would have done, I am baptist and baptist's have historically stood for the freedom of the individual so I could see myself joining the colonists, but that is only speculation.

 

All I want is ONE Biblical injunction for me to go out into the streets and take part in rebellion against a God-ordained and duly elected government.

 

C4K, I nor as far as I can tell no one else is advocating the overthrow of our way of life. We are saying that it is about time that we take control over it again. That means standing and protesting, preaching holiness, loving and praying for officials, and take the battle to the devil. We can do this at the same time we are spreading the gospel and seeing people saved.

 

I agree with all of that, and staying in submission to the "higher powers" at the same time. I have no problem with legal protests.

 

I don't disagree with any of that and in fact have said that from the beginning. We should use all legal means to change our government. "Taking control of it again" means that we do it through the legal channels. That is what the Bible requires and is exactly what I have said.

We also need to remember that such activity is the responsibility of individuals, not of the church.

 

Humm, PL you said "not of the church." Let me ask you then, who is the church?

 

Humm, PL you said "not of the church." Let me ask you then, who is the church?

 

Can I answer it only once????

I speak of the church as an institution. The church as an institution has no role to play in politics. To do so undermines the authority of the church. Let me remind us of what Carl F. H. Henry said:

[/qb]He was dead on. When the pulpit becomes a place for something other than the gospel, it is subjected to mere opinion. And while true believers might differ on political opinion or position, they cannot differ on the gospel. When I use my pulpit to speak about politics, or to engage in political activism, I am encouraging doubt about the authority of God's word with those who differ with me politically.

The church is never commanded to make political statements. It is in fact charged only with the faithful propogation and defense of the Word of God. It transcends governments, nationalities, political parties, and social agendas. It does not aim to change society from the outside. It aims to change man from the inside. If more churhces faithfully preached the word, we would have better politics. The problem is that too many churches are dabblign in things that don't matter.

 

Well first of all the church is made up of individuals who should be likeminded and in one accord. This will not happen unless they are lead and taught. Your Rev. Henry was not right on. He was only partially right.
Let me ask you if you speak out on abortion or sodomy or injustices in the judicial system?

 

Can you give me a Biblical example of rights that we have that are "given by God alone and can be taken by God alone?"

Please support the answer with scriptural evidence that God gave us these rights.

Which of these Biblical rights were being denied by the crown?