Will You Submit to Government?

Image result for 1 peter 2:13

Our sermon in church today was 1 Peter 2:13.

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.

The pastor explained how the government is put in control by God and “therefore” we must submit and obey. Like ALL sermons that I have listened to, there is no discussion. The congregation must submit to the pastor, reverend or minister. I will admit that I went to get up halfway through the sermon but my wife restrained me. I endured the rest of the sermon and left. Looking back, I should not have expected anything less. Our churches submit to the government’s policies on abortion (murder), homosexuality, immorality, gay marriage and its attack on Christianity.

If we are to submit to “government”, how does the church justify the United States? This country was founded on a revolution against the king of England. Should we submit to a government founded on an act against God? The English did not call our war the American Revolution. They called it the Presbyterian Revolt because the church was in the forefront of our fight for freedom with a firm reliance on divine Providence.

I know that war is coming. I know that God will guide my actions with Sacred honor. I also know that most of our churches have become little more than cowardly institutions supporting evil as in Nazi Germany. Matthew 4 was not considered in this lecture:

Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;

And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Nor Ephesians 6:110-14:

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

Nor Luke 22:36:

He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

Why would Jesus tell his apostles to buy a sword if we are to submit? Are we to submit to ISIS as they decapitate priests for praying? I will defend my family and friends against tyranny and evil. I pray that our “churches” find discernment in the Word and not in mistranslations.

Below is a different analysis of 1 Peter 2:13 for your consideration.

David DeGerolamo

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Submit to Government? (1 Peter 2)

It was Peter who uttered the words, “We must obey God rather than men!1 to the Sanhedrin. Does he later tell us, in 1 Peter 2:13, to submit to secular governing authorities rather than God?

Read these two versions of the text.

“Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. For such is the will of God … Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.” (1 Peter 2:13-17 NASB2)

“Be ye subject therefore to every human creature for God’s sake: whether it be to the king as excelling; Or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of the good: For so is the will of God … Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.” (1 Peter 2:12-17 DRA3)

“Be subject, then, to every human creation, because of the Lord, whether to a king, as the highest…” (1 Peter 2:13  Young’s Literal Translation)¶ 

The first version seems to suggest we should submit to every human institution, while the second, an 1899 version, reads as though he is admonishing us to be submissive to every human creature alike and show them honour for God’’s sake. What was Peter saying and to whom?

More…

      
Plugin by: PHP Freelancer
This entry was posted in Editorial. Bookmark the permalink.
0 0 vote
Article Rating
41 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Average Joe
Average Joe
4 years ago

I expect many of us have had our issues with such misunderstanding, misdirection, or out right deliberate deception when it comes to the teaching of the Christian church. I agree, we ARE to resist evil and for anyone to claim otherwise make the a fool, liar, servant of Satan, and our God a liar. Make no mistake, such teaching make God a liar and we know that is impossible for there is only one father of lies and that is the fallen angel cast our of Heaven who will spend 1,000 years on the pit having been put their by God.

While standing up and leaving would have make a wonderful statement there are times when discretion is called for and this may have been such a time. Likewise I also found myself in a church where we were only getting pieces of God’s teaching and so we left and have, so far, found a church that is proud of God’s word and preaches if boldly with conviction.

Maybe given the chance you can ask the pastor of the church if, given the order, marry homosexuals, allow men to go to the bathroom with little girls, perform abortions, remain silent on sin if so ordered by government, or if he were in Nazi Germany would he have worked at of the camps. Yes to any of those tells you where his faith is and it is not in God.

Chuck Baldwin has spoken and written on the subject and his words are;

A) Biblically based
B) Educational
C) Spot on (in my opinion)

So while the links below are on Romans 13 the answers are the same and our duty remains to serve God not government.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwgX-v3-bFk

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/Articles/tabid/109/ID/511/Romans-Chapter-13.aspx

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Average Joe

Pastor Baldwin is playing pretty loose with the wording.

Scripture: For rulers ARE NOT a terror to good works

Baldwin: Notice that civil government MUST NOT be a “terror to good works.”

Essentially the Bible says ‘is’ and Pastor Baldwin changes it to ‘ought’.

The bulk of the body is correct, if hyperbolic; you should disobey any law contrary to God’s Holy Commandments. There’s ample Scriptural support for this.

Then this:
‘”Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God’s minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor.”

Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.’

That’s probably blasphemy, but never mind that. The US Constitution, which doesn’t even mention God, is a document that holds all gods as equal and holds religion to have no place in public life beyond an individual’s private faith, or lack thereof.

“The Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
-1797 Treaty of Tripoli (signed by John Adams)

[Sorry, no comments at Baldwin’s site]

Average Joe
Average Joe
4 years ago
Reply to  rogerunited

“That’s probably blasphemy, but never mind that. The US Constitution, which doesn’t even mention God, is a document that holds all gods as equal and holds religion to have no place in public life beyond an individual’s private faith, or lack thereof.”

It may do us well to remember more than one state, at the time the Constituion was signed, had state sponsored Christian churches. In other words tax dollars we used to support them.

So while the founders sought to prevent the Federal government form forcing a particular sect upon the states and the people the US Constituiont was not an an impediment for religious preferences of the sovereign states, Neither is there anything in that document which suggests faith to have no place in public life. It only RESTRICTS the US government from infringing upon religious liberty NOT the citizens.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” John Adams

““Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society.” George Washington

“May every citizen in the army and in the country have a proper sense of the Deity upon his mind and an impression of that declaration recorded in the Bible: “Him that honoreth Me I will honor, but he that despiseth Me shall be lightly esteemed” [1 Samuel 2:30]. [11]”. Sam Adams

From the Mayflower compact to the Declaration of Independence and on to the state and US Constitution there is not doubt they were written based upon Biblical principles. After all nearly every founding father was a member of a Christian church so to suggest they in any way sought to limit their or their fellow citizens religious liberty doesn’t make any sense.

““There is no dissonance in these declarations. There is a universal language pervading them all, having one meaning. They affirm and reaffirm that this is a religious nation. These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons. They are organic utterances. They speak the voice of the entire people.

This is a religious people…this is a Christian nation.”

From SCOTS 1892 Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Average Joe

It is true that the States are (or were) not bound by the Bill of Rights and did establish churches to some extent. But the Constitution itself is not a Christian document even if it was written by men raised in a Christian culture. Assuming we still lived under the original intent of The Constitution, there would be no objection to an islamic state or a pagan state, there is no difference to a Constitutional government.

There was an implicit Christianity in British society at that time due to over a thousand years of Christianity being not just religion, but law. This is one of the tyrannies that the founders wanted to abolish, and look at the fruit it has yielded.

That the founders attended churches is no proof of their faith*. Barack Obama attended church and the Pharisees attended the temple, the literal, physical dwelling pace of the Lord God Almighty Himself and look how they turned out. Outward piety is no guarantee of inward faith, of course, neither is law, but the latter creates the mental and linguistic framework for society. That is the manner in which society is perceived by those who live in it.

The long and short is government and law can no more guarantee faith than can sermons and psalms, but both can influence behaviour. By preventing the infringement of religious liberty, the Constitution has, ironically, been used to infringe on religious liberty! This is due to the desacralisation of government, a very definite goal of the founders, which has made government simply a tool for those with the power to control it. I will not say that noblesse oblige and other such notions were always held in high esteem or even given more than lip service, but the concept of a governors duty to the governed-a concept that many here seem to hold-is part and parcel with a divinely ordained social order. In a winner-take-all social order, its your fault if you are one of the losers, ie nobody ‘owes you anything’, not even charity. I could put it another way: there is no Christian witness implicit in the winner-take-all social order.

Christians should do nothing that does not give glory to God; anything a Christian does should be consecrated to His glory. The Constitution is explicitly not consecrated nor does it offer glory to the Father.

*

Average Joe
Average Joe
4 years ago
Reply to  rogerunited

rogerunited says: ” But the Constitution itself is not a Christian document even if it was written by men raised in a Christian culture. ”

If you will read my previous post you will note I never stated the Constitution was a “Christian document.” Your statement seems bent on making such an impression. Having cleared that up, at least you accept the document was influenced by the Christian religions which was by far the most prevalent religions at the time of the founding.

Again, we know from the Mayflower compact, to the Pilgrims dedicating the land to spreading the Gospel to Alexis de Tocqueville that this land and therefore it’s documents are based upon this foundational faith.

“Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country

Religion in America … must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion-for who can search the human heart?-But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

The sects that exist in the United States are innumerable. They all differ in respect to the worship which is due to the Creator; but they all agree in respect to the duties which are due from man to man. Each sect adores the Deity in its own peculiar manner, but all sects preach the same moral law in the name of God….

Moreover, all the sects of the United States are comprised within the great unity of Christianity, and Christian morality is everywhere the same.” Alexis de Tocqueville

Then as previously posted we have the SCOTUS declaration that the United States is Christian nation leaving one to wonder why you question the nature and commitment of the people who founded the country. If I am mistaken in your intent the illuminate your meaning when you offer comments such as;
“That the founders attended churches is no proof of their faith*.

While only God can know a man’s heart the evidence that the vast majority of the founders and citizens who established the country were practicing Christians is overwhelming. To compare them, the founders, to Obama, who seems to believe the Christian God and allah are the same, or the Pharisees who denied our Lord and had Him crucified reads as nothing less than obfuscation.

While the next quote is taken out of context it is not my intent to change it’s meaning but rather to rebut the assertion.

rogerunited says: “By preventing the infringement of religious liberty, the Constitution has, ironically, been used to infringe on religious liberty!”

I disagree with this statement for it was not the document that was used to infringe upon our religions liberty but rather a court run amok, ruling well out of the powers granted unto it. The only thing worse was the cowardice of Congress to deal with the matter promptly. Had the Constitution been followed the court would never have issued rulings banning prayer in schools, the 10 Commandments, Bible reading and a host of other liberties clearly provided for in the First Amendment.

rogerunited says: “This is due to the desacralisation of government, a very definite goal of the founders, which has made government simply a tool for those with the power to control it.”

If we follow the founders statements we recognize governments are instituted among men for the protection of the rights which they are endowed with by their Creator. Upon that premise government is not sacred unless it upholds it’s duty to protect those God given rights. Once it escapes those bounds and refuses to restrain itself it looses all legitimacy, becomes evil, and righteous men are duty bound to remove it.

Our government was never designed to be a “winner take all social order” but rather a republic where the rule of laws is recognized and upheld by all men. If we have allowed government to fall into such a squalid state as you suggest we now live under what the founders considered the worst form of government, a democracy. While we may be closer to that reality than the founders reality it in no way lessens the ideals bequeathed to us by them nor has our duty and call to restore them been greater.

rogerunited says: “Christians should do nothing that does not give glory to God; anything a Christian does should be consecrated to His glory. The Constitution is explicitly not consecrated nor does it offer glory to the Father. ”

I can see you have trouble recognizing or accepting the founders commitment to Biblical principles but your assertion in no way erases the evidence provided or the evidence remaining. A brief synopsis might read like this…

God created man and gave man freewill. The creation of man and the freewill with which he is blessed are for the glory of God. Man always intended to be governed by God and His word. Point of fact is that the Constitution sought to recognize and protect that existence and therefore is intended honor our Heavenly Father. How else could one explain the prayers offered for guidance, the support of the Christian ministers of the day, and the use of a Bible to pledge their oaths? Why did they attend Christians churches sing His praise, and worship His Son? Is that not offering enough glory unto God?

The founders recognized the political nature of the agreement. They knew it was, to some extent, a compromise but also knew, on a Federal level at least, they were unlikely to expect better. So while we may wish there had done more in one regard or another they also provided a means by which it could be changed. It seems to me our challenge remains, as always, to insist by whatever means necessary, the rule of law laid down in that document is followed…to the letter.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Average Joe

Very well written reply, I appreciate the effort. Not enough internet commenters are willing to put so much in.

Your argument about the support of the churches, if not the prevalence of Christianity in the culture, apply to the current political landscape, too, so this argument is weak. It wouldn’t surprise me to find Loyalist ministers in the 1770s in roughly the same proportion as we find conservative ministers today.

As for the supreme court, I seem to recall that even some of the founders worried that there wasn’t enough restraint, as is clearly the case today. The anti-federalist position was always that the constitution created a government that was too centralised, and the supreme court uncontrolled:
‘I said in my last number, that the supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no controul.’ -Brutus, 20 March, 1788. That this was a grave error in the Constitution, I think we can both agree. We might also agree that the checks and balances have never really worked.

My basic contention, far from attempting to judge the faith or salvation of people long dead, is that the founders, rebelling against what they saw as an overbearing state and Church in Britain went too far in the other direction. By completely separating church and state, Jefferson’s ‘wall of separation’ if you will, they created the appearance of two separate entities and opened the door for the one to dominate and the other to be subjected when political power inevitably centralised. That the public and the culture were steeped in Christianity has been no defense against the ungodly use of government power, and the churches become either impotent bystanders or cheerleaders; and modern Christians’ attempts to retroactively sacralise the Constitution elevates the obviously flawed document to a position that I don’t believe it’s authors intended and that it doesn’t warrant based on it’s performance.

None of this should not be construed as implying that I believe there is some perfect middle ground, that would be utopianism, I am simply pointing to things I see as errors in our founding and making suggestions for when the see-saw inevitable rocks the other way. Assuming we Christians don’t end up back in the catacombs!

Tom Angle
4 years ago
Reply to  rogerunited

“It is true that the States are (or were) not bound by the Bill of Rights and did establish churches to some extent.”

The 1st Amendment clearly states “Congress shall make no law”. So a state can, the federal government cannot.

Tom Angle
4 years ago
Reply to  rogerunited

“The US Constitution, which doesn’t even mention God, is a document that holds all gods as equal and holds religion to have no place in public life beyond an individual’s private faith, or lack thereof.”

Wrong, it only states Congress shall make no law. Nothing is mentioned about the state or other local government. So there legally could be a state/county/city religion.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

I am not wrong, the Constitution prevents the fed gov from preferring one over the other. I mentioned, and you quote it in another of your replies, that the States were originally not bound by the BoR prior to the incorporation doctrine, but the fed, under the Constitution, is.

Tom Angle
4 years ago
Reply to  rogerunited

“holds religion to have no place in public life beyond an individual’s private faith, or lack thereof.”

I took you comment to mean that religion does not belongs in no public setting. Can you state where in the Constitution it denies it at a state/county/city level?

So you are saying even though the states signed the Constitution, they are not bound by the first 10 Amendments? Where is that stated in the Constitution? Article VI, clause 2 states that it is the law of the land.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

I believe religion belongs in the public setting as much as it belongs in private, which is fully.

‘Can you state where in the Constitution it denies it at a state/county/city level?’

The Constitution does not deny it except that the First Amendment is now applied to the States. Google Incorporation Doctrine, the Supreme Court decided in 1925 that the 14th Amendment ‘incorporated’ most of the BoR and thus it now applies to the States. The final nail, as it were.

Tom Angle
4 years ago
Reply to  rogerunited

Can you tell me where the Supreme Court receives the right to create/change law or amend the Consitution?

Also is an amendment that was illegally ratified really the law?

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

‘The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office’

Unfortunately, that’s all the Constitution says!

If you’re building the argument that we no longer have true Constitutional governance, then I’ll borrow Lysander Spooner’s quote, ‘But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain -- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.’

I think the American experiment has failed in every measure except economically. I think the anti-federalists were right and I think when the US does crash, it would be better to try something else, hopefully taking the past into consideration.

Tom Angle
4 years ago
Reply to  rogerunited

You keep stating thing that are not in the Constitution as it matters legally. Since the government is criminal in almost all actions it take, we are not obligated legally, morally or religiously to follow it.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

‘Since the government is criminal in almost all actions it take, we are not obligated legally, morally or religiously to follow it.’

Where is this in the Bible?

Tom Angle
4 years ago
Reply to  rogerunited

So you are saying that if a group of criminals came into your church and said we are in charge now. You are to follow them as if they where the actual leadership there?

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

No. Ignore them.

Tom Angle
4 years ago
Reply to  rogerunited

Do you see my point yet.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

I’m not sure I do.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

I’m not sure I do.

[Did I reply to this?]

Tom Angle
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

That leadership is al legitamite as the government. So why follow one and not the other. But then again, I think you are trolling.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

I think I see the comparison you are making, the current gov is the criminals with guns who have taken over the church in your previous comment.

I say let them exalt themselves. As long as they don’t try to make me do something contrary to God’s commandments what does it matter? Does church leadership legitimize the congregation or does the congregation legitimize the leadership? I think its the latter.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  Tom Angle

Ignore my other reply to this comment, I was in the shower and realised I didn’t give your comment the consideration it deserved.

Do you remember those cheesy shirts that said WWJD? The answer to the question What Would Jesus Do is always the same: He’d do the will of The Father (John 6:38). If The Father’s will was to grab a whip and drive the moneychangers out ot the temple, he’d do that; if The Father’s will was to meekly consent to unjust arrest, conviction in a Kangaroo Court, torture and crucifixion, he’d do that and do it with forgiveness in His heart and a prayer for his enemies. (Luke 23:34)

If your mind is made up as to how you will react in any given situation before hand you should ask yourself who’s will is being done? But if you need a guide then be Christlike and bless your enemies, turn the other cheek and choose martyrdom with forgiveness in your heart and a prayer on your lips.

This conversation has crystallized a lot of things for me, thank you.

rogerunited
4 years ago

Of course, the different analysis you link to comes up with the conclusioin that the verse could or should be read:
“Be subject to every human creation, there because of the Lord.”

Which doesn’t change the meaning in regards to government and could even be extrapolated to include many other human creations such as NGOs, corporation and even idols! Clearly that doesn’t jibe with the rest of Scripture.

He ends wit this bit:
‘His main point, I believe, is that they submit to those He has placed in authority over them, not those simply elected,’
implying that God has no control over elections.

I think the author is reading through an ideological lens.

As to your question:
‘If we are to submit to “government”, how does the church justify the United States? ‘

The various churches at that time justified it because of ‘religious freedom’, in other words they came to the New World to get away from an authority they disagreed with.

Preempting your follow up about whether or not I will submit to government, it depends on what the government does. I’m no saint!

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  DRenegade

Hey, you interpret Scripture however you want, religious freedom, baby!

As a side note, do you think the book you mentioned is a balanced view of all churches’s views or a series of examples showing how the Revolution was justified through Scripture by revolutionaries, which is how the book is described?
‘In Sacred Scripture, Sacred War, James Byrd offers the first comprehensive analysis of how American revolutionaries defended their patriotic convictions through scripture. Byrd shows that the Bible was a key text of the American Revolution. Indeed, many colonists saw the Bible as primarily a book about war.’

I’m not going to buy it since it isn’t a subject that interests me.

Romans13:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Matthew 22:
Render unto Caesar what is Ceasar’s.

Titus 3
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good, 2 to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone.

Titus3
9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

If we’re honest, politics is just a diversion from important things, and that’s how I read the above passages in light of 1 Thessalonians 4:11. (not quoted here)

1 Timothy 2:
I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

You quoted Ephesians 6:12, so how will political fighting and violence defeat enemies not of flesh and blood? You can’t create a Godly country through politics or violence-you can’t force the First Commandment-it can only be achieved by the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Its the people, not the government, who are the problem.

Proverbs 14
34 Righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people.

You cannot build a ‘Shining City On the Hill’ through politics or force of arms.

Anyway, this is getting long and you’re probably only half reading at this point. TL;DR as they say.

I’ll just throw a couple verses and one non Scriptural quote in and I’m done:

2 Timothy 3
12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

John 16
33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Society tends to be unjust, but not in the way the conceited imagine.
There are always more masters who do not deserve their position than servants who do not deserve theirs.
-Don Colacho

Ephesians 6
5 Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ;

6 Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart;

7 With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men:

8 Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free.

9 And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  DRenegade

If you will submit and serve God then you will follow Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2!

Why were Peter and Paul killed? Bad governance!

Paul was martyred by Nero for promoting another king, which I guess would be treason.

The Bible does not tell us how Paul died. The tradition is he, like Peter, was martyred by Nero and for the same reason.

A question for you. In what way did they fail to submit to government other than where it conflicted with God’s commandments?

Its also interesting to note that I can pull so many verses about submitting to authority, but you have none for resisting authority.

Society tends to be unjust, but not in the way the conceited imagine.
There are always more masters who do not deserve their position than servants who do not deserve theirs.
-Don Colacho

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  DRenegade

‘ an evil empire that wants me to accept immorality, homosexuality, abortion and gay marriage. ‘

When they do follow through and force these abominations on churches, probably before O leaves office, Christians will resist, but not through violence excepting individual physical self defense and defense of others. Unless directed by God to do so as in the OT, overthrowing a government you disagree with is merely imposing your will through force.

As I said in my original reply to you, from the part you didn’t read:

‘You quoted Ephesians 6:12, so how will political fighting and violence defeat enemies not of flesh and blood? You can’t create a Godly country through politics or violence-you can’t force the First Commandment-it can only be achieved by the Grace of the Holy Spirit. Its the people, not the government, who are the problem.’

When the government goes off the rails, hopefully Christians (myself included) will love their neighbors and their enemies praying as Christ did on the cross after submitting to ungodly government, ‘forgive them, Father, they know not what they do’, and leave behind a Godly witness for ungodly times.

‘“By the death of martyrs religion has been defended, faith increased, the Church strengthened; the dead have conquered, the persecutors have been overcome. And so we celebrate the death of those of whose lives we are ignorant. So, too, David rejoiced in prophecy at the departure of his own soul, saying: ‘Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints.’ He esteemed death better than life. The death itself of the martyrs is the prize of their life. And again, by the death of those at variance hatred is put an end to.”

+ St. Ambrose of Milan’

If they want the world so bad, they can have it, we don’t belong here.

tjs
tjs
4 years ago

Certainly there are churches that do submit to much of what the government wants. Although what I think it really is, is that the church didn’t at first conform but the congregation insisted this is what they wanted and the church conformed to what the members wanted. In scripture though we learn though that the Christian and the church will need to stop at a point and not conform or follow what government wants. This was well demonstrated for us in the accounts of Daniel in the Lions Den and the Three men in the Fiery Furnace. These men had a SHTF situation in their country and them and their fellow country men were conquered and taken captive in a foreign country. The leaders of that country found them to be useful, educated and of good service. When the government said you need to worship me the king the men saw the line in the sand and did not cross that line. Governments will always go out of their way to do things that we can not agree with. Are we ready to say no and take the consequence of the penalty of death? Personally I don’t think that means a violent revolution. Each of these men simply refused, maybe they hope their actions would cause their country men to follow suit, but the never picked up arms. They simply were willing to be put to death for their God, the true God. Christians are to be in the world but not of the world. There will always be things going on around us that are contrary to what God tells us is right. That is because this world is ruled by the prince of darkness, satan. We are to be that light in the world that shows people hope and the truth. We are also here to use the world of God to bring about division. When one person hears and believes in the truth and others do not, they are divided from those people. We will be divided from family, friends, and our government yesterday, today, and tomorrow, until God comes and ends this world and separates his sheep from those who are not his. I don’t always think that “rebellion” (not sure I like that word) is going to be about a war with any tool other then what Martin Luther used, the Bible or maybe I should say a pen to write a Bible that all men could read.

rogerunited
4 years ago
Reply to  tjs

‘Steadfast’ is the word you’re looking for. Good comment.

watcher
watcher
4 years ago

Any surprise that the Preacher is teaching this perversion of scripture. Howz those 501c government exemptions working for your liturgical accuracy in Gods messages?
They have been doing this for years, and if you repeat wrong interpretations for long enough, all it takes is one generation removed from the Hebrew language, and you can interpret scripture according to the Roman-Greek interpretations and meanings of words.

This perversion is what they are now teaching in seminary courses.

The same pathological socialism bent has been embedded and adopted by the christian religions just as it has been embedded into our educational systems. Social conditioning. Slow and steady re-writing. Tell the story incorrectly over and over for years and they will start to believe it.
History is being re-written in those academic books too as well as in the Christian Bible, and mostly due by negligent and erroneous mistranslation of original words and general misunderstandings of original Hebrew meanings and usage of Hebrew words, and due to the Roman-Greek-ionization conversions from the original Aramaic Hebrew.
It has made it fairly easy for these seminary and theological colleges to be able to teach their versions of their reformed theological erroneous re-interpretations without any resistance or questioning. One generation to the next.
And when you do question them outright, they get quite obstinate and angry that they are quite capable of reading their bible and know what it says and what it means! Do you have a degree in theology? How can you question me?
Actually, Who is going to question them? A Hebrew? They keep their distance! they don’t read or attend these “churches” to hear this liturgical blasphemy.
And Verily, Verily …rarely do christian theologian scholars speak Chaldean or Aramaic Hebrew, much less do they have the cultural background assimilation or even the understanding of the cultural significance and differences to Middle Eastern Hebrews, due to their learned biases of understandings in their upbringing, educations, and in their practice of christian religions, much less understand that the specific usage of certain English language words (ie. like, love, vs. agape) and the differences in meanings in the specific words application in the practice of Judaism. You cannot know those things by being raised as, and living as a “christian”, in a christian country. Thus, you never learn the “truth” of Torah. It’s all in the power of the WORD.

Welcome to the heresy of the Holy Bible, the new world christian versions.

shalom.

Mark
Mark
4 years ago

Hmmm…Fascinating posts over one of the great debates. When the government (NWO or just the Democratic precursor) comes to take my guns…or my Homophobic Hate Speech book (they better get the guns first – it will be way less expensive) or herd me into a FEMA corral, or give me this little chip so I don’t have to lug around a stupid wallet, or whatever else along that line I pray to -- I want to -- have the courage to become a martyred soul wearing a white robe…but my personal rub fits this thread as its not if I will die…but how will I die…not the method or cause of my death that I wrestle with…but my conduct before it.

Can I die like Polycarp? (Not at the top of my list)

Or am I filled with confidant bluster like Peter before the rooster crowed three times?

Or will I go down as I want…witnessing, protecting, serving, defiant to the end while FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT…literally? But is that what He wants? (His will not mine…but now we are back to that not at the top of my list bonfire).

I want to end up one of the Saints (not one of the compliant yada…yada…yada take a number and get in line sheeple ant’s). I want to end up in a white robe hanging out under the alter asking God when is He going to avenge my blood! Or even better RAPTURED sometime during the 6th seal! (I’m Pre-Wrath – all you grasshopper Pre-Tribers are gonna be scrambling).

Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary
6:9-11 The sight the apostle beheld at the opening the fifth seal was very affecting. He saw the souls of the martyrs under the altar; at the foot of the altar in heaven, at the feet of Christ. Persecutors can only kill the body; after that there is no more they can do; the soul lives. God has provided a good place in the better world, for those who are faithful unto death. It is not their own death, but the sacrifice of Christ, that gives them entrance into heaven. The cause in which they suffered, was for the word of God; the best any man can lay down his life for; faith in God’s word, and the unshaken confession of that faith. They commit their cause to Him to whom vengeance belongs. The Lord is the comforter of his afflicted servants, and precious is their blood in his sight. As the measure of the sin of persecutors is filling up, so is the number of the persecuted, martyred servants of Christ. When this is fulfilled, God will send tribulation to those who trouble them, and unbroken happiness and rest to those that are troubled.

Lisa the Infidel
4 years ago

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. -- Thomas Jefferson

“Two flags fly above my land they really sum up how I feel. The one is the colors that fly high and proud, the red, the white, the blue. The other ones got a rattlesnake with a simple statement made. Don’t tread on me is what it says, and I’ll take that to my grave.”
-Aaron Lewis

Tom Angle
4 years ago

I would be interested to here from any men of the cloth if it is a sin to support an illegal act of your government. In other words, the government passes a law that is in contradiction of an already existing law. The Bible states “James 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.”. I have asked before and have not gotten an answer.

Mark
Mark
4 years ago

I use to be a kill’em all and let God sort’em out guy…not everyone can say that from experience so I have some real world in the fighting hole heavy weight on 99% of those who say that and are clueless about it: the mall ninjas, the wanna bes, even the real killers who are waiting for and hoping for the chance…and all the rest who have no idea what close in killing does to the vast majority of the killers. (Read On Killing if you want to buy a clue).

Then I was brought to my knees and had my heart changed…then I studied the Bible for 23 years…and got into the Biblical weeds…like many in this thread.

This thread has fascinated me…I keep reading it over and over. Excellent points of view by all. I love NC Renegade.

Let me give a short answer to this thread’s title and opening two part question.

First part: Will I submit to our evil, tyrannical, oppressive government…NO.

Second part: Will I submit to our evil, tyrannical, oppressive government for the Lord’s sake YES…but that will have to be a Holy Spirit induced and inspired act directly communicated. On my own, when push comes to shove, to doors being kicked in…I will kill’em all and He will sort’em out.

I will pray about what I just wrote…and continue to buy more ammo.

Mark
Mark
4 years ago

Average Joe
Average Joe
4 years ago

rogerunited says: “Your argument about the support of the churches, if not the prevalence of Christianity in the culture, apply to the current political landscape, too, so this argument is weak. It wouldn’t surprise me to find Loyalist ministers in the 1770s in roughly the same proportion as we find conservative ministers today.”

Respectfully, I have provided historical quotes/evidence from people who were actually alive and wrote about the environment prevalent at the time of the founding. You, on the other hand, have provided merely personal speculations. I expect you being an intelligent individual realize the difference so let the readers make up their own minds. Also, you certainly must understand there is little, if any, comparison between the compliant church of today vs the Black Robe Brigade and the Christian church at the time of the founding. After all, if were not for the Christian church we would not have had the Declaration of Independence, a revolution, the Constitution, and certainly not the Bill of Rights. Juxtapose that with today where we have the government co-option of the Church via tax laws as well as bribes, the apostasy of the Pastors, combined with the laziness of the members whom have traded sweet liberty for perceived security.

rogerunited says: “As for the Supreme Court, I seem to recall that even some of the founders worried that there wasn’t enough restraint, as is clearly the case today. The anti-federalist position was always that the constitution created a government that was too centralised, and the supreme court uncontrolled:
‘I said in my last number, that the supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no controul.’ -Brutus, 20 March, 1788. That this was a grave error in the Constitution, I think we can both agree. We might also agree that the checks and balances have never really worked.”

Here we seem to reached agreement and I’ll express my appreciation for confirming my snetiments on the matter. Now we must find agreement on how to address the abuses and usurpations of the Court.

rogerunited says: “My basic contention, far from attempting to judge the faith or salvation of people long dead, is that the founders, rebelling against what they saw as an overbearing state and Church in Britain went too far in the other direction. By completely separating church and state, Jefferson’s ‘wall of separation’ if you will, they created the appearance of two separate entities and opened the door for the one to dominate and the other to be subjected when political power inevitably centralised.”

Let me start by mentioning that if one actually read the letter from Mr. Jefferson one can plainly see he was speaking about FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’s interference with the free exercise of religion. I find no other side to the issue in that letter or in the founding documents. In fact what you see as having gone to far is what I believe the founders meant to prevent, a nationalized Church. As myopic as I may be, the dangers of such are plain even at this point in our history.

rogerunited says: ” That the public and the culture were steeped in Christianity has been no defense against the ungodly use of government power, and the churches become either impotent bystanders or cheerleaders; and modern Christians’ attempts to retroactively sacralise the Constitution elevates the obviously flawed document to a position that I don’t believe it’s authors intended and that it doesn’t warrant based on it’s performance. ”

I again find myself in disagreement with you position regarding the necessity of our founding faith and the protections it offers. A people who believe and follow the Christian faith are not only the majority of the founders of our country but also the majority of those who have preserved it, with few exceptions. In fact, I would contend that our departure from our foundational faith, most often at the coercion and or demand of government, have placed our republic, in recent years, in utmost jeopardy. For if we had followed our Christian faith and our Christian conscience we would have taken all actions necessary to demand the rule of law be upheld even if it required the watering of the tree of liberty.
Towards the end of this comment you claim the Constitution failed. I would ask how a piece of paper, which means nothing without the consent and duty of the people to uphold it, fail? If I do not make my house payment, is it the fault of the registered mortgage? If I commit an infidelity against my wife, is it the fault of my marriage license? I expect you understand the fallacy of claiming a document failed. Lastly and again most respectfully, documents do not fail, people fail. As Mr. Franklin responded “A republic, if you can keep it.” In the end no words on paper will ever be sufficient restraint against the tyrant, the duty is always ours, the results God’s.
rogerunited says: “None of this should not be construed as implying that I believe there is some perfect middle ground, that would be utopianism, I am simply pointing to things I see as errors in our founding and making suggestions for when the see-saw inevitable rocks the other way. Assuming we Christians don’t end up back in the catacombs!”

Thank you for that.
To recount, I do not believe, nor did the founder, believe the Constitution to be” perfect.” Most who have spent time on the matter recognize that as reality and have ideas on how to make the needed changes. In fact, the founders in all their faults and wisdom provide a means to afford such changes but it is, as it should be, set at a high standard. It, of course, is the amendment process and if the document is to be changed let us all uphold the examples they provided, let us uphold their sense of honor and honesty and demand we follow the original agreement or been prosecuted for the treason not doing so requires. With a firm reliance upon the Almighty of course.