Christians and the state

This seems like a subject for a different forum than politics unless you are headed somewhere not indicated in your post. I would add that biblical principles apply to life and do not have to be placed in specific categories in every case. This we need to be careful of so that we do not lead hypocritical lives living by biblical principles some of the time and secular ones at others. This includes voting, serving as representatives, work, school etc.

 

What the Rev is saying is that ALL of the biblical principles apply to our relationship with the state. And I agree with him.

The Bible doesnt give any instructions on attending footbal games, but when I attend one God still expects me represent myself in a christian manner. The same principles apply at a footbal game that apply in church.

I am suprised that you didnt know that.

AJ

 

First of all Roman's 13 doesn't tell us to submit to the state or government. It tells us to submit to the higher power. In our case that would be the U.S. Constitution and the law.

 

Yeah I guess you did and yeah it is. So, what are we supposed to do when they (the state) no longer submits to their higher authority.

Must have been the above line that got me confused.

 

1. I owe allegiance (secularly) to the Constitution. In my military career, I swore to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

2. Any government that goes too far in twisting the constitution needs to be overthrown, as the following quote from the Declaration of Independence plainly says.

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. ..."

 

Can you define "too far"?

 

Attempted confiscation, by a future administration, of weapons held by law-abiding citiizens would be the final sign--as it was for the men at Lexington and Concord. As has been said by others, a people with arms are citizens, an un-armed people are subjects.

 

Seems like that's all being done by stealth. First thing the state did was to turn a right into privilege then it started to limit those to whom this privilege was to be "granted". We're being systematically disarmed alright but not by outright force...yet. Unless you count NOLA after Katrina when the state started confiscating firearms from law abiding citizens "for their own saftey" and the "common good", of course.

 

To perhaps add to the original question posed, how about introducing "No man can serve two masters" into the discussion...

 

Christ's teaching of render unto Caesar is covered in the Roman's passage to pay your taxes but could be included.

 

Yeah! Good idea! Who is the state's master? God or mammon? If it be God then yea I say let's submit and follow the government officials! If it be mammon then...uh...we make excuses and keep following the government officials anyway?

This brings up a question in my mind...

What if Caesar (the state) claims to have powers of taxation the law does not allow? Should we pay them or not?

 

I believe this says it all, except that we should obey God above all!


Acts 5:27-29
27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them,
28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood upon us.
29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.
(KJV)

 

As Americans, our state authority consists of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I, and every military person, police person, and firefighter, have sworn to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I owe allegiance to no man nor any government of men, but to the Constitution.

As Jefferson said,

"...We hold these truths to be self-evident:
That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. .."

 

The Declaration sets forth basic principles, such as the right of the citizens to challenge the state when the state violates the principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit if happiness. I did not mean to say that the oath includes the Declaration. The oath, however, is not to the state--it is to the Constitution. We are not responsible to the state, we are responsible to the Constitution, and we have sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic." We owe no allegiance to the state or its leaders if they stray from support of the Constitution.