Xians, help me out with Rom. 13:1-5.....Is Bush "ordained by God"........

[grumpy old fart]

and therefore "the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil"?

I often see reference to these passages, by cite only of course, with no recitation of the actual language, as justification for christian support of the war. My guess is that most people never look at an actual Bible, and just take it that there is biblical support from Jesus for pursuing war, since Romans is in the New Testament.

[TechBear_Seattle]

1. Here you are...

Quoting from The Revised Standard Version, chapter 13:

<1> Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
<2> Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
<3> For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
<4> for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
<5> Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.

This passage was the basis for the doctrine of "Divine Right of Kings", which our Founders fought so hard -- and so successfully, until the Bush Administration -- to destroy. It is in direct conflict with the Declaration of Independence, which states explicitly that governemnts are instituted among men to secure their rights and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Either God has appointed anyone strong enough to take and keep control, or else "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."

In other words, you either believe what the Bible has to say about government, or you are an American Patriot who values our history and heritage. They are mutually exclusive options and you can not be both.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Except that the Bible also says that God hates corruption, so I would

think we could nail ** on that.

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. We already have enough ammo

We have enough ammunition being handed to us by right wing hypocrites that we needn't go to the effort of scrounging for more :thumbsup:

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Check out Matthew 4:8-10

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor.

"All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me."

Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written:'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'"

This passage shows that the temptation to rule temporal kingdoms in the name of God is from Satan. If Jesus rejected that temptation, so then should we who follow him.

[Lerkfish]

3. as per usual, the right wingers cherrypick passages..

they conveniently ignore the preceding chapter, which contains:

Romans 12:17Recompense to no man evil for evil. Provide things honest in the sight of all men.

18If it be possible, as much as lieth in you, live peaceably with all men.

19Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

20Therefore if thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head.

21Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.

or even further in chapter 13;

8Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

9For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

10Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

11And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.

12The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.


also, if you take the book as a whole, you realize that Paul is using the metaphor of putting on the gospel as ARMOR...to illustrate a point.

and further, if you look at that scripture in context, its clear that the vengeance referred to is coming from GOD (as per the preceding text in chapter 12 -- vengeance is mine, saith the lord)

The bible is a great book, but if you cherry pick it, you can appear to justify almost anything.
Its meant to be read in toto and in context.

[grumpy old fart]

6. Thank you for your input. I'm not simply bandying about bible quotes.....

This particular cite has been used by local ministers in support of Bush's right to wage war, and God's approval thereof. When they cite the passage they,of course, never spell out the actual content. Most people have no idea what the passages actually say, and will never look it up. What if instead camouflaged message, they were made to actually came out to the general public and sign off on the following:

"Bush is appointed by God, a revenger to execute wrath on evildoers, and whoever resists Bush resists the ordinance of God and shall receive damnation"? Romans 13:1-5

How many people with "W" stickers,church going and/or just common folks would be cool with that? No more than about 20% I'd wager. I think it's a way to undercut the disproportionate power wielded by these dangerous mullahs.

[htuttle]

7. Romans was written by Paul

Paul supposedly never even met Jesus in person.

:shrug:

[Bluerthanblue]

8. If bush is there because God wants him there

then where does the concept of "free-will" enter in.

And, more importantly, the people never 'chose' their 'leaders' did they? in the bible i mean. The leaders were 'blood' or 'lineage' qualified- with rare exceptions. There was no 'democracy' in any of the 'social' groups i'm familiar with in the bible.

The best answer i would give is "why didn't you treat Bill Clinton as if he was God's annointed leader?"- that often brings people up short.

And, it was Paul/Saul speaking. Not Christ-

and this:

James 3:13-18 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let him show by good conduct that his works are done in the meekness of wisdom. But if you have bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie against the truth. This wisdom does not descend from above, but is earthly, sensual, demonic. For where envy and self-seeking exist, confusion and every evil thing are there. But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, willing to yield, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality and without hypocrisy. Now the fruit of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

[Bluerthanblue]

9. meant to add, our lust for

oil, and 'things' and our greed is what drives this-

If our 'hope' is in the Lord- (Jesus) we quite honestly, don't need weapons- If we used our bounty to be sure the hungry had food, the sick had care, the suffering had comfort, we would be destroying our enemies with love- the best and only effective weapon there is.

i know, i'm a froot loop.
but i'm willing to die for it.-
i'm not willing to wage war against helpless people in fear of 'death'-
life would not be worth living, knowing what i had become.

[grumpy old fart]

11. It is not so much my intention to undermine their crazy assertions........

I mean, you kind find Biblical "support" for just about anything you might care to assert. I am about making the Theocracy position clear to the general public. I don't want to attack their assertion of Bush being anointed by God, I just want the general sheeple public to be clear that that is the insane position of these wolves in sheep's clothing....Sort of like when Tom Cruise was finally exposed as an insane believer in aliens...

[Bluerthanblue]

12. to do that they would have to admit

that they have been duped. That's not easy for many people.
Practice makes 'better' (i'm a long way from perfect) i'm often duped-
I'm often wrong. But it's easier to admit that when you've had to be picked up off your butt enough times. Or eaten enough crow that veggie is now your life style choice.:D

[NAO]

10. To Understand Rom. 13, must read Yurica's "Despoiling of America"

There is an entire political/religious/activist/sedious movement called "Dominionism" that has gained TREMENDOUS influence in the Religious Right. They (partly) base their bizare philosophy on an interpretation of Romans 13.

The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

In "Despoiling", Katherine Yurica lays bare their teachings, and she analyses nut-case Scalia's rantings on Romans 13:1-5 in the context of the Dominionist movement.

Some other articles of interest:

The Swift Advance of a Planned Coup: Conquering by Stealth and Deception - How the Dominionists Are Succeeding in Their Quest for National Control and World Power
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheSwiftAdvanceOfaPlannedCoup.htm

The Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party
a public information project from TheocracyWatch.org
http://www.theocracywatch.org

The Yurica Report - News, Intelligence, Analysis
http://www.yuricareport.com

The Religious Right - An Anti-American Terrorist Movement
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8816.htm

[grumpy old fart]

18. Excellent site....Thanks.

this whole attempt to raise a Xian theocracy is getting lost in all the I.D. B.S., which is indeed their attempt to get a foot in the door....

[Igel]

13. So much confusion, so little time.

Democracy/US constitution and Rom. 13 aren't in conflict. How the ruler gets appointed is beside the point. Coup, inheritance, or election, no diff. They're in power by whatever route they get there, and by God's appointment, in traditional views.

Specifically, Paul was speaking concerning Caesar and such. I'm fairly sure that Caesar would not have been amused by the claim that it was specifically God the Father, per Paul, that set up Caesar as ruler.

Nor with what Paul actually said: they're appointed. For a reason. "To execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." I.e., to maintain public order. It doesn't say that the ruler's set up to do anything he wants, and anybody he punishes is ipso facto a evil doer. After all, in short order the authorities were persecuting Christians.

It's the same with freewill: they're appointed by God, and freely chose power. It's a problem of available information. Statistics works the same way: if you don't have enough information, you use probabilities and stats to fill in for your missing knowledge; if you have the knowledge, the predicted probabilities are meaningless. If you have God's knowledge, the thinking must go, your actions are predictable; hence there can be no freewill. On the other hand, if you only have your knowledge, you must think things through--that you'll do it a certain way is not known to you, and from your vantage point you have free will, and can decide however you want. But you'll want to decide a certain way. I do it with my kid all the time: he makes his own decision, and it's the one I know he'll make, and the one I've planned for.

The problem with the NT is there is no provision for those in power being Christians. There is no government set up, church or otherwise, by Jesus. The apostols set up a rudimentary form of church government; in my view, that's all that any group of Christians has actually put into practice in nearly 2000 years. Jesus treated a Roman centurion like any other. In Acts, a centurion is counted as righteous--so one can be a Christian and a soldier, it seems. These men were occupiers. Notice neither Jesus nor Paul told them they must quit being a soldier. And Jesus told the Roman to fulfill the law, since there were still priests; presumably, Cornelius, the other centurion, fulfilled what was needed as appropriate.

[ResRedneck]

14. I would say...

That Paul is accurate in one sense.

Human Government is ordained by God. The system of government that we live under was ordained and prescribed by God, but the elected (sarcasm?) officials we have might not be the most Godly.

As Karl Barth said, we cannot claim to have God on our side, as only God knows what side He's on.

[grumpy old fart]

15. All Governments ordained, prescribed, by God? All forms, all leaders?

Or are you saying just the fact of Governments are ordained, but not the actual leaders? So Communism is ordained, Islamic states?

[ResRedneck]

16. I'm saying that Government...

In all forms is placed in position by God. The actual leader at the time might not have "God's Blessing", and the government might not be what is best for all citizens under it, but take a look at the Early Chrisitans living under the Caesers during the authorship of Romans. Surely the government was not 'good' for the Christians, but Paul gave it legitimacy in the eyes of the early church by saying, "Hey...this is what we live under. Submit to it - so long as the laws and practices do not violate your Christian beliefs."

[grumpy old fart]

17. I understand Paul's motive, but what would be God's motive?

As you are aware, this passage has been used as justification for all types of tyranny down the ages, while all Paul wanted to do was avoid conflict with the Roman Empire. Rather short sighted on Paul's part it seems.

[Redbear]

19. Paul was writing to a specific group of people

at a specific time. He never intended for people TWENTY years later to apply his words to their own situations, much less almost 2000 years later.

[renter]

20. Hi Grumpy Old Fart

Maybe this will help.Paul wrote this part of Romans as pragmatic advice. In Paul's day to protest government was a good opportunity for you to loose your life. After you and maybe your family and friends were tortured. Paul's advice was to obey government, be a part of government, and change government from within for the better via Christian morals. This advice to obey government and work within it for the better is, from what I can tell, is what a large number of posts in D.U. is all about.
For further reading that may help you, you may want to read John 19:11. The need for government is best expressed in Judges 21:25.
Good Luck.

[grumpy old fart]

21. Thank you. I do understand the passage, however it gets used by fundies..

to give Bush carte blanche to run amok. Of course, you can find justification for just about everything in the Bible. Very useful, and dangerous, that book.

[struggle4progress]

22. How does he measure up against these quotes?

You will not reap to the edges of the field, nor gather all the gleanings, nor strip your vineyard bare, nor pick up fallen fruit, but will leave them for the poor and the stranger. -- Leviticus 19:9

Your houses are filled with the spoils of the poor. By what right do you crush my people? -- Isaiah 3:15

Disaster for those who plot evil and lie in bed planning mischief: as soon as dawn comes, they do it because they have the power. -- Micah 2:1

Since you have plundered many nations, all the nations that remain will plunder you -- Habbakuk 2:8

He has filled the starving with good things but sent the rich away empty-handed. -- Luke 1:53

Anyone who has two shirts must share with someone who has none, and similarly for those who have something to eat. -- Luke 3:11

And all who shared the faith owned everything in common, sold their possessions and distributed the proceeds according to what each needed. -- Acts 2:44

[PatsFan2004]

23. As pointed out, Romans was written by Paul during the reign of

Caesar. The government in Rome was extremely corrupt, decadent, and militant. Paul the Apostle stated emphatically that this corrupt government was ordained of God in Romans 13.

Now God has allowed the Bible to be passed on to us for our edification.
2 Tim 3:16-17 All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching the truth, rebuking error, correcting faults, and giving instruction for right living, so that the person who serves God may be fully qualified and equipped to do every kind of good deed.

If we pick and choose Scriptures then we place ourselves above God and the Apostles.

Christians in the old USSR had to deal with Romans 13 and an atheistic corrupt government. They chose to be good citizens EXCEPT with regard to Bible smuggling, public proselytizing, secret worship, and baptisms.
Maybe, we can learn from their example.

[TreasonousBastard]

24. Excellent replies here, and you know the answer...

is that this passage is not a spiritual leading that guides them to accept Shrub and his polices, but used as an excuse for them to support Shrub.

It fits in with their worldview of Dominionism, evangelism, rebirth, and whatever else they believe is necessary to bring about God's new empire.

Direct confrontation with them over this is useless, since it is not this passage but their entire belief structure that is the problem.

To me, and many others, Christianity is summarized by the Sermon on the Mount, and not by Paul's leters about how to run a church in ancient Rome.

"Blessed are the peacemakers..."

[PatsFan2004]

25. Jesus did say more than just the Sermon on the Mount.

Mat 4:4 But Jesus answered, "The Scripture says, 'Human beings cannot live on bread alone, but need every word that God speaks.' "

Mat 16:15 "What about you?" he asked them. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." "Good for you, Simon son of John!" answered Jesus. "For this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven.

IMHO, Christianity is more than just the Sermon On The Mount. Jesus claimed to be the Son of God (blasphemy to some Jews). If you do not accept that claim, then Jesus is either a LIAR or a LUNATIC and not worthy to be respected.

Christianity is about God so loving the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not die but have eternal life (John 3:16).

[TreasonousBastard]

26. This is true, but...

now we're getting into another area of theology.

Most Christianity does start from the concept of Christ's divinity, and goes from there. But, all of the Albergensians, Gnostics, Anabaptists and others weren't killed off in the Middle Ages. The Quaker tradition I follow is that Christ's divinity is a mystery that we have no way of properly understanding, and so we simply let it pass. We don't ignore it, or deny it, but consider it somewhat irrelevant to our relationship with God. Since we can't explain it, it may be a great truth but it is not necessarily a truth for us. We talk of "The Light" as our understanding of these things we don't fully understand.

What we do consider important are the leadings we get from that relationship with God, very likely including Christ, of course, and how we are to live our lives in the present. The present is the only thing we know, and so that is where we concentrate.

So, yes, we are free to believe that Christ's authority came from his divinity, but we are also free to ignore where his authority comes from, and simply accept his message. That message is well summarized in the Beatitudes.

[carl_pwccaman]

27. 2 or 3 witnesses

In the the Law of Moses, 2 or 3 witnesses were required to convict, and in the NT, reference is made to 2 or 3 witnesses, also.

Many insist that for a doctrine to be valid, Biblically, you should have 2 or 3 scriptural passages, in context, that pertain to the issue and come to the same conclusion, and consistently with the themes that run throughout the Bible, otherwise you are likely to be proof-texting.

Other hermenuetics are used by different movements within Christianity, and are argued until people are blue in the face. If you disagree radically with the way your church handles serious issues and the way they approach interpreting scripture, then it sounds like a big mis-match. There are other churches with different approaches, some of which might at least give you more of a hearing, even if they don't necessarily agree with you on all the issues that bother you.

That said, I don't recommend Bible-verification of politics, at all, as there wasn't enough consistent Biblical principle to apply to justify freeing slaves or standing beyind the human right to be free from torture, it took political philosophy and ethics that developed in our culture when religion stopped taking control of politics, for our culture to come up with more consistent and human human/civil rights notions.