|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 15, 2009 20:43:47 GMT -8
As a pluralist country I actually don't have a problem with certain aspects of the "gay rights agenda" (health insurance for gay couples, for instance). I just don't see the above examples as situations involving "gay rights" but rather infringements on the "freedom of religion".
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 16, 2009 12:33:26 GMT -8
Let's see, Paul's letter was to the Romans at some point before 70AD. So would that be in the time of such godly Roman rulers like Caligula or Nero?  I wonder what in the world Paul was talking about....hmm? I have no objection with the instructions to live peaceably with our government (as much as it depends on us to do so), but Christianity is by nature a subversive religion to the government and so I don't think they will ultimately live peaceably with us without our compromise. I don't see any scriptural mandate or even encouragement to assert rights in government that are distinctly Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 16, 2009 12:35:06 GMT -8
I agree. And I'm with Marcus in that I don't think the government has any business being in the marriage license business at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 16, 2009 13:16:29 GMT -8
It was probably written during Claudius reign (between Caligula and Nero, and during a relatively stable period).
I don't really get your point about though. I think Paul is describing how a God-pleasing government (even a secular one) would act.
I'd be curious to see you attempt to prove this.
Freedom of religion isn't a distinctly Christian right, though it does comport with Christianity.
I don't particularly like the term "rights" anyway. But freedom of religion in what God Himself desires, not compelling anyone into His kingdom.
I agree as well. But that's beside the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 16, 2009 15:58:19 GMT -8
You're on. But it'll have to wait til I have more time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 16, 2009 18:32:22 GMT -8
Keep in mind that I think Christianity is often at odds with government (and especially human nature itself), but I don't quite see how you could say it is inherently at odds with government considering Paul's words in Romans 13.
Oh, and we should probably start another thread on this.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 16, 2009 20:32:07 GMT -8
The root of “subversive” is subvert. Definition: 1. to overthrow (something established or existing).
2. to cause the downfall, ruin, or destruction of.
3. to undermine the principles of; corrupt. Isaiah spoke of a time when Jesus would come and begin His government which would increase until it replaced all others. Isa 9:6-7
6 For unto us a Child is born,
Unto us a Son is given;
And the government will be upon His shoulder.
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of His government and peace
There will be no end,
Upon the throne of David and over His kingdom,
To order it and establish it with judgment and justice
From that time forward, even forever.
NKJV Daniel had visions of Jesus’ Kingdom which would consume all other kingdoms. Dan 2:44-45
44 And in the days of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people; it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
NKJV Dan 7:13-14
13 "I was watching in the night visions,
And behold, One like the Son of Man,
Coming with the clouds of heaven!
He came to the Ancient of Days,
And they brought Him near before Him.
14 Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom,
That all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion,
Which shall not pass away,
And His kingdom the one
Which shall not be destroyed.
NKJV His subjects take the Kingdom by spiritual violence (warfare) Matt 11:12
12 And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force.
NKJV Jesus said His Kingdom would start small and spread throughout the world (i.e. supplant the others by implication) Matt 13:31-33
31 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: "The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and sowed in his field, 32 which indeed is the least of all the seeds; but when it is grown it is greater than the herbs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and nest in its branches."
33 Another parable He spoke to them: "The kingdom of heaven is like leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal till it was all leavened."
NKJV
Jesus Himself said His Kingdom was one that makes lovers of truth follow Him over Caesar. John 18:36-38
36 Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here." 37 Pilate therefore said to Him, "Are You a king then?" Jesus answered, "You say rightly that I am a king. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world, that I should bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice."
NKJV The apostles allegiance was to God and His kingdom, not Caesar. Acts 4:19-21
"Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. 20 For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard."
NKJV
Acts 5:27-30
And the high priest asked them, 28 saying, "Did we not strictly command you not to teach in this name? And look, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this Man's blood on us!" 29 But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: "We ought to obey God rather than men.
NKJV
Acts 5:38-39
38 And now I say to you, keep away from these men and let them alone; for if this plan or this work is of men, it will come to nothing; 39 but if it is of God, you cannot overthrow it--lest you even be found to fight against God."
NKJV Those in power were alarmed and offended by this message of the Kingdom. Acts 17:6-7
"These who have turned the world upside down have come here too. 7 Jason has harbored them, and these are all acting contrary to the decrees of Caesar, saying there is another king--Jesus."
NKJV Paul says our citizenship is of this Kingdom Phil 3:20-21
20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which we also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body, according to the working by which He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.
NKJV We see in poetic imagery an angel heralding Jesus’ take over of all worldly Kingdoms. Rev 11:15-1615 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" NKJV
I'd say that's a pretty subversive message. Wouldn't you? That doesn't mean we flat out disobey the authorities. I agree that Romans 13 demonstrates that we are to obey the authorities when it doesn't conflict with obeying God. That's not the point being made here. Even Jesus said: Mark 12:17"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."NKJV
Submissiveness is one of the devices that wins people over. It's peace, patience, humility, gentleness, meekness mingled with unwavering resolve to obey God that are the things that are attractive to those who are predisposed to the kingdom of God. That's a violent overthrow in the spiritual realm. |
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Dec 16, 2009 21:36:57 GMT -8
I'd like to throw this out there:
You are speaking about convenience of religion, not freedom.
Freedom comes from within ourselves, realizing the ability to make choices. No matter what inconveniences any government, person, or entity create, we still possess the freedom to practice religion, speak, write, whatever. The constitution simply makes it more convenient and comfortable for us to express ourselves. Thus, no real threat to freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 17, 2009 22:47:46 GMT -8
This passage doesn't speak of "replacing". Jesus kingdom is not of this world in the sense that it co-exists with the kingdoms of this world (though it supercedes them)
This passage doesn't say God kingdom will consume or destroy all other kingdoms, just the four mentioned in the prophecy.
The violence is against the "spiritual forces of wickedness" not against human governments.
)
I disagree that this means it will supplant others by implication.
Rather, I see the kingdom of God as wheat among the tares until the second coming. Isn't that obvious or am I missing something in your argument?
Verses that show that Christians owe allegiance to God above everyone else don't necessarily preclude Christians showing a lower level of allegiance to other entities.
Some, not all. What about all the European kings who converted to Christianity?
Look, yes, Christianity is subervise... to bad governments. And all governments have more or less bad in them.
However, Romans 13 doesn't just ay that we shouldn't flat out disobey the authorities. It says that God has ordained the authorities. How can He ordain something that He only wants to completely bring down and subvert?
kirbstomp wrote:
When the founding fathers spoke of freedoms, they meant that no one in the government would stop you.
No one stopping you from your exercise of freedom is one valid definition of freedom. Try telling an African American slave in the pre-Civil War south that they are already free in every sense.
When they cried for Freedom they cried for the ability to live free without resistance.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 18, 2009 10:13:05 GMT -8
Just so that we don’t get tangled up in semantics, let me phrase it this way.
Almost every nation and king (including the “good” ones), considers itself sovereign. I believe that what God is claiming (in these prophesies and through the words of Jesus) is that none of them are sovereign, only He is sovereign and has the authority to command allegiance and every other government is therefore merely a vassal. That is subversive from the standpoint of any state (including US). If I, as a US citizen, say to my government that I will not obey the order to _____ because my true King says not to, I’m basically saying my government does not have ultimate authority over me. Why do you think so many Christians got martyred? Look at Polycarp’s story.
What an odd thing to say. What do you suppose He’s been doing throughout all of human history? Did He not say this exact thing about Nebuchadnezzar an d Pharoah? Jeremiah records God saying Nebuchadnezzar was His servant, then He turns around and says He’s going to destroy him for his wickedness. God uses evil instruments to bring judgment on people all the time. That doesn’t mean He approves of them.
By the way, do you think Paul was saying that the Caesar of Rome was God’s approved government?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 18, 2009 19:00:54 GMT -8
chris wrote:
I agree that God is the only ultimate sovereign. However, that is a pretty fundamental principle on which our country is founded- a country founded by people who themselves had to defy their king for the sake of their religious conviction.
In fact, ever since the "rule of law" began influencing politics ages ago, something other than the king has been considered sovereign- something higher and more absolute.
Our country is best when it preserves religious freedom, because it provides an opportunity to submit to the sovereignty of God without impediment.
I don't want to lose that privilege.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 18, 2009 19:06:32 GMT -8
What an odd thing to say. What do you suppose He’s been doing throughout all of human history? Did He not say this exact thing about Nebuchadnezzar an d Pharoah? Jeremiah records God saying Nebuchadnezzar was His servant, then He turns around and says He’s going to destroy him for his wickedness. God uses evil instruments to bring judgment on people all the time. That doesn’t mean He approves of them. By the way, do you think Paul was saying that the Caesar of Rome was God’s approved government? God may have ordained Nebuchadnezzar (and other rulers) for the specific purpose of punishing Israel, but I don't think that's what Romans 13 is talking about. I think Romans 13 is saying that God knows that humans need government and therefor grants authority to governments to restrain evil. God also judges countries on how well they carry out this responsibility. The fact is that any human society needs a police force, for instance. Should the Church be in the business of policing? No. Yet for justice sake it needs to be done. Therefor God authorizes a lesser kingdom (or as Augustine might say, the City of Man) to maintain justice, so that the Church (the City of God) may exercise grace. The two can theoretically be complimentary- it's just that human nature tends to spoil everything- especially governments. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 19, 2009 14:01:49 GMT -8
Did I say something contrary to that? Maybe we're not understanding each other for some reason.
Paul is certainly making an "in general" type of statement in Rom 13. If we take Pauls' statements to woodenly, we'd have a few scriptural contradictions here. In general, the governing authorities enact laws that are just. In general, the governing authorities justly enforce those laws. That doesn't mean every government in power starts out with God's approval and a clean slate only to turn bad later does it?
In the examples you opened this thread with, I don't see the infringement on "religious" freedom here since most of the occurrences involved legal entities conducting business, not exercising their religion. If these entities didn't apply for business licenses or tax exempt status, they wouldn't the strings attached that they do. Don't get me wrong, I thing they were unfairly treated. But my guess is that it was within the parameters of the law.
A Christian photographer is free to give his services freely and accept whatever gratuity is offered. A Catholic organization is free to not file as a 501(c)(3) legal entity and provide it's services for free, again accepting whatever gifts are given to it. The trade off is not always worth the benefits.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 19, 2009 14:03:25 GMT -8
Kirby wrote: I like that. It reminds me of something Victor Frankl would write. Freedom comes from within.  A couple more from contemporary music: There is freedom within, there is freedom witout, try to catch the deluge in a paper cup
-Crowded House Freedom is just another word for nothin' left to lose...
-Janis Joplin Not quite as profound, but it does show the different ways people view freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 19, 2009 20:48:54 GMT -8
Agreed of course.
Well, I was trying to demonstrate that the church is not always in a subversive role to the government (which is what I took you to be saying), but can be in a complimentarian role as well, depending on whether (or how well) the government is fulfilling it's God ordained mandate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Dec 19, 2009 21:02:14 GMT -8
marcus, you originally made this statement:
And I disagree with both points you're making here. Laws do affect behavior and do protect against the grossest forms of persecution. And fighting perseuction isn't a contradiction in my book. The Christian is free to work against any injustice, as long as our conduct honors our inheritance of faith. For instance, we are enjoined to love our neighbors and our neighbors benefit from freedom of religion as much as we do.
What if Wilberforce had refused to employ political means to bring about slavery in Great Britain? I think he knew that all means were necessary in the fight, as long as they were done in righteousness.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Dec 20, 2009 23:17:42 GMT -8
That is what I was saying. The church is subversive by nature to any government in the sense that the government has no ultimate authority to the Christian. The true King supplants that ultimate authority and the government only has a secondary authority insofar as it aligns with will of the King. Only a truly Christian nation wouldn't have a problem with that (and there are none).
I think the confusion we're having is in how we define subvert. If you're thinking I mean to overthrow, then that's not how I'm using the word at all. But if you're thinking I mean to undermine, than you'd be correct. The church undermines the authority of government when it refuses to cooperate with something contrary to Jesus' will.
That's the way I see it anyway.
|
|
I wonder what in the world Paul was talking about....hmm?
