Romans 13, Do Americans have to submit to the president?

Do you really believe that Americans in general are in submission to God's will? Are we really one nation under God? Or do we merely give the "Under God" thing lip service when we refuse to obey his word and place ourselves under the authority of the government he says he has ordained and established? Again, I am not arguing about what the courts recognize. I am arguing about what the Bible says. How can a political party claim to be a Christian or Godly party and yet endorse a form of government that is in direct rebelllion with what the Bible teaches?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Actually, I tend to think it is because we are sinners who do not read our Bibles very much anymore. Speaking of which, is there anything in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence that might contradict what the Bible teaches? Like say, our Constitutional form of government? You see, this is what I think is my biggest problem with the CP (although I will admit that I do like some of their ideas) is that they seem to elevate the Constitution above the Bible in many issues such as the form of government that should be followed and helping our neighbors in their time of need. Yet, they call themselves "servants of Christ" on the Arkansas CP website. I honestly don't know how a political party can claim such things while ignoring his teachings in the Bible.

In the time of the founding fathers when this "compact" the cnstitution was conceived and written and made law I think the majority was in submition.[/QUOTE]

Did they also believe that their government was ordained by God and that they should submit to God's word by submitting themselves to the authority of the Government? If they saw a neighbor country who was in need, would they have helped them? If so, why would we want to do any different today? Yet, the Constitution Party seems to advocate just that: a government run and controlled by sinful man instead of being under submission to the government that God ordained and establishe; a government who says the suffering of the rest of the world is not our problem. Pull out of Iraq and let them die.

But the founding fathers still founded a government of by and for the people and this is still a legal binding contract to this day.[/QUOTE]

And yet the Bible teaches the exact opposite. The Bible teaches that the government is of, by, and for the Lord. Is the Bible not a spiritually binding contract which should trump the legally binding contract of sinful men?

Does God believe in law and leagal binding contracts? I think so it was he that made the first right? [/QUOTE]

What about the law of God? Should we ignore that in order to fulfill the Constitution? I say no.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Poncho,

You are correct.

The Constitution is very clear on the government's duty. It IS the servant, not the master. The Constitution is not a guideline, but actual law (Supreme Law of the land).

The Constitution is also a document of limitations, not on the people, but on the government.

Article I, Section 17 list the only duties the government is allowed to do. Anything not expressly given to it in section 17, the government cannot do...period.

Just as we as citizens have civil and criminal laws we must abide by, so does the government and the laws it must follow are written in the Constitution.

So, given this, if the government breaks a law, what is the consequence? Are they above the law? If we have laws to abide by, shouldn't the government? If they pass unconstitutional laws, do we still have to follow them?

For me, if the US government, bound by the law of the Constitution acts outside of this law, or passes laws that break the laws of the Constitution, then they should be considered null and void and I for one, am not obligated to follow such illegal laws.

This is what the Supreme Court has said many times in the early days of our Republic, before the liberals started their brainwashing campaign of the "living document" false doctrine.

 

Quite honestly, I don't care what "troubles you." The Bible never makes that the standard of obedience. The Bible says that we are to obey the government, unless or until they ask us to disobey God. Then we are to obey God. Your "troubles" make difference in the equation.

I am troubled by many things in teh government. But that is not the biblical standard.

As for your continued attempt to make "we the people" the government, that doesn't even make sense. "We" and "government" are clearly distinguished. We elect people to government. That means they are the government. You are barking up the wrong tree.

 

Bart,

Your question is a tough question. I assume I know the unnamed group you are talking about. And for the most part, they are generally on. Having not heard them on this issue, I cannot pass any judgment though I don't presume you to be lying about it.

In this case, them an is clearly putting his wife in jeopardy and has abandoned the marriage. If he is a member of a Baptist church, why has he not been disciplined from the church?

I would say in this case, based on what you have said, that she has the biblical right to pursue a divorce from him, based on the words of Christ in Matthew. I would hope that biblical confrontation would bring this man to a place of repentance. I don't know how that relates to anything in this discussion, but there is your answer.

 

Not crafty, but intelligent, God fearing Christians, who understood that liberty is for a righteous, God fearing/respecting people.

They understood that the rights we enjoy come from God, and no man can take them away, which means God is the only one that can take these rights away, and he does so when we lose our mandate to him.

The Constitution the final convenant with God that began with the Mayflower Compact. Our Declaration of Independence was also a declaration that we no longer will bow to a monarch, claiming the worship of God. We declared that God is our Lord and Sovereign and he is the creator of right and wrong and our laws.

When the founders signed that Declaration, they essentially violated Romans 13. They threw off their government and went to war against it.

Sometimes rebellion is necessary and I think God uses rebellion to make things right. He certainly won't (even though he can) miraculously change things. He uses man.

I think Satan wants blind obedience from Christians. This is the only way he can get his work done. Look how bad things have gotten only because Christians won't stand up and fight. Satan also uses man to do his works. How are we to stop these posessed men if we don't rebel once in awhile?

Also, why is it okay for the government to do what we can't? Is President Bush justified overthrowing an evil dictator like Hussein? Wasn't Hussein put there by God? Why can the government come and get someone for breaking the law, yet we can't do anything when the government breaks the law?

What about the Pastors on this forum. If the government said it was against the law to deny marriages to same sex couples, and anyone who did deny them could be charged with descrimination and face possible jail time, would you perform same sex ceremonies? The government mandates it and if we follow Romans 13 with blind obedience (as some here suggest), then you would have to comply...or would you?

 

I don't think anyone has suggested blind compliance. In a case where obedience to the law would violate the Word of God, "we ought to obey God rather than man," has been repeated over and over again in this thread.

The point is, it must be a simple refusal to obey, like Daniel when he was forbidden to pray or the three Hebrew children when they refused to bow down. Notice in those cases that the parties involved were punished by the government. They accepted that judgement with respect. The did not picket or advocate the overthrow of the government. They obeyed God and accepted the consequences.

When Isreal were captive in Egypt, the did not stay and advocate Pharoah's overthrow, they left.

Can anyone think of an Biblical example of political revolution or rebellion ordained by God?

 

Israel was in bondage in Egypt all those years, and could not leave, until God sent them a Deliverer. They could not just get up and leave. They did not have the power or means to do so.
Neither did the Christians in the days of Paul and Peter, when Nero uleashed a horrible reign of persecution and cruelty against the Christians. They were thrown to the lions in the Coliseum, used as human torches to light Nero's garden, burned at the stake, tossed to the bulls, skinned alive, and endured some of the most outrageous and cruel torture known to man.

Putting Christianity in its proper perspective, we have no rights. We give our lives to Christ. He has full rights over us. We were bought with a price, the price of the blood of Christ. Now we belong to Him. As a slave has given up his rights to his master, so we have given up our rights to Christ when he redeemed us (paid the purchase price) from the slavery of sin.

The Book of Judges tells one story after another of the Israelites as they go in an unbroken cycle of disobedience and idolatry--
to repentance and calling out to God--
to God sending a Deliverer or a Judge--
to their enemies being conquered and the land having rest--
to going back again into disobedience and idolatry and the cycle starting all over again.

All the time the nation of Israel was in captivity (it didn't matter to which government), they were duty bound to keep the laws of the government under which they lived. It wasn't up to them to decide which laws they wanted to keep and which laws they didn't want to keep. Many times their oppressors would treat them cruelly, and they would suffer. They had to submit to the authority of their government--a government that they justly deserved because of their sin.

It is God that puts in governments and tears them down. He has ordained government. Good or bad, we get what we deserve. The Lord is still on the throne. He is still in control, and never condones any illegal acts. He commands us to submit to those in authority, and to pray for those in authority.
DHK

 

By obedience to the government so that by submissionk you will put to silence the ignorance of foolish men. That is what Peter said about it. In the midst of a horribly pagan government that was killing Christians, Paul did not say rebel. He said submit.

The governments is ordained to do many things that individuals cannot do, such as capital punishment and vengeance, and waging war.

[]/qb]First, who here has suggested blind compliance??? Everyone I have seen has said that we are to be in submission to government until government requires us to disobey God. This scenario would be disobedience to God. But since pastors aren't required to marry anyone at all, it doesn't matter.

The bottom line is that the Bible teaches that Christians are to be submissive to governments unless that government requires disobedience to God. Scripture does not limit it to governments that we agree with or governments that are godly. Just look at the context to see that veyr clearly.

 

Pastor Larry,
The church they attended at that time did not practice church discipline. That was not an option. It is my observation from your answer that you are saying that she was under no obligation of the scripture to obey the "God ordained authority of the home" due to the husband's willful disregard of the Word of God.
My point is this:
** If it is right for a wife to disregard the command for submission and obedience in the Word of God because her husband is no longer acting and carrying out his scriptural duties to the point of being a tyrant in the home.......then it is consistent to throw off the chains of an anarchist government when it is not following the Word of God and has made itself the enemy of God by it's own actions. Romans 13 clearly states that I am not to be "afraid" of the ruler for good works. Rom 13:3 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:
The God ordained power is to praise that which is good. A power that is a terror to good works is the highest form of anarchy. That is why our BAPTIST forefathers were in agreement with the colonists who fought against the King of England. They understood this concept. We must be consistent.
Thanks ------Bart

 

Nope ... not saying that at all. 1 Peter 3 makes it clear that wives are to be in submission even if their husbands are disobedient to the word. I made the point 1) that adultery is a specific biblical grounds for divorce and 2) the woman is in danger. However, that is not to be entered into lightly.

And if that church wasn't practicing discipline, it is a church out of order. Did she ask the church for help? I don't have enough info here to make an informed opinion about it.

But to the point, you are connecting dissimilar situations. In your first situation, God made an explicit exception. In the second, he made no such exception. If the government passes a law that puts you in imminent physical danger, then perhaps you would be permitted to break that law since it involves the image of God in man.

But you fail to note that the government when Paul wrote Rom 13 and when Peter wrote 1 Peter 3 was a pagan government, not a righteous one. The Roman governement was an "anarchist government" that was not following the word. Paul said to submit to that kind of government. This seems to be a clear, black and white issue.

 

I am glad you mentioned number two. If the woman is in danger she is not obliged to honor and obey a devil. Right? She is relieved of her obligation.
Thanks ------Bart

 

Danger is a pretty high bar though ...

 

It was a church out of order. At this point the church has nothing to do with our discussion.
Thanks -----Bart

 

Under our form of Government submission to a President is not required since he is not a king and has no kingly powers. In our system of Government, Submission to the US Constitution is something ever American should do. We are to defend and protect the US Constitution for without it there is no USA. In a sense the US Constitution is our king and not the president.