Romans Chapter 13

Under our system of government, we the people are to decide our values. When we allow evil policies and laws to be enacted, we are to demand reparations. The authorities, in this case are supposed to be us.

 

We are responsible for the decisions made. When we see bad laws being passed, we are to reprimand, chasten, or ultimately replace those offenders.

 

Romans 13 was not written to people with a good government. That is an important piece of info. Paul was telling believers to submit to a government far more hostile to Christianity than the American government.

The law provides means to change the government. We should use those means.

Civil disobedience is acceptable only when the government requires me to disobey God, not simply when it makes it possible for someone else to disobey God.

I think we should vote these ungodly people out of office. I have no problem exercising our rights as citizens to speak up about government. (My problem is when pastors do it as a part of their calling as pastors.) We can insist and demand that they follow the Constitution as Baldwin says. But we must make such insistence and demands in line with the law of the land.

But Romans 13 means we can't disobey the government simply because we don't like what they are doing.

 

I pretty much agree with this.

 

There's just one flaw in this argument that I can see. We can vote people out of office alright, change the faces and all but the policies stay the same no matter who's in office. Why? Because our "government" doesn't make the policies that are ruining our country.

That's all done by a "higher power", multinational corporations, the military/security/energy industrial complex and their central banker buddies. Vote for whom ever you will chances are they are already bought, paid for, controlled by, or working for one or more of the above. So in essence we wouldn't be disobeying our government. We would be disobeying the global elite that controls our government now and who we never elected and have no right to rule over us what so ever.

 

So you are for reparations to be paid to the descendants of slaves?

 

PL,

I'm in full agreement with you on this one.

I do have a question for you and any other: When is civil disobedience acceptable? Was the Civ Dis during the civil rights movement (and other similar things) acceptable?

Tim

 

Good points.

Love your quotes in your signature.

Tim

 

Here in the USA, one of the conundrums we're presented with is, we are technically our own government, with the US Constitution being the ultimate "leader", and our law specifically allows for civil disobedience (up to an armed revolt) in the case that it is necessary to preserve this law.

So, civil disobedience is lawful and specifically called for, if it is because of an illegal (unconstitutional) event. So, when they demand our guns, the law of the land tells us to fight the tyrrany. When they try to silence people, the law calls for them not to be silenced.

In our situation in certain circumstances, disobeying one law is obeying another.

 

Here is a sermon by Jonathan Mayhew. It was published in 1750. Some say it helped spark the American revolution.

"A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers"

Hosea 8:4 "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not."

 

Rom 13

There are many on this board who believe that the Christian brothers who participated in the American Revolution were wrong. I would like to see a poll started just to see if those who believe we still should be under the king of England would stand up and be counted.

The Doctrine of the Civil Magistrate is a forgotten issue in our churches today and if it is taught, it is a fluffy, Burger King doctrine, "Have it your own way".

The answer is always "render unto Ceasar" and then when you get right down to it.........everything belongs to Ceasar! No distinction and no backbone.

Bartimaeus