[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

L.A. has deployed their tactical women’s assault team (Satire) Sky News vs. Iranian Professor: The Most Intense Interview of 2025! Media Critics Call on CNN to Fire Brian Stelter Over Reckless Tweet Following Minnesota Shooting Minnesota Gunman Vance Boelters Wife Detained for Questioning Sanctuary State Governors Double Down On Illegal Immigration In Tense Capitol Hearing Iranian Missiles OBLITERATE Israeli Nuclear Facility — Massive Explosions Rock Tel Aviv! The Most Environmentalist Woman in the World (Satire) Trump Rejects Netanyahu's Request To Join War, As Israel Needs Large US Bunker Buster Bombs Inside the Chaos: Paid Rioters, Fake News & The 2025 Shift Ft. Brandon Tatum What the Media IsnÂ’t Telling You About IsraelÂ’s Strike on Iran (VIDEO) 'No Kings' Terror? Fake Cop Assassinates Minnesota Democrat Who Blocked Health Care for Illegals Peter Thiel’s Insane Doomsday Escape Plan Nigel Farage warns riots will sweep Britain due to decades-long failure to control immigration School board trains staff that the term family is harmful, racist Fort Wayne joins in on nationwide ‘No Kings’ protests, honoring veterans and giving back More than a human can bear Top Doctor Blows Whistle: Hospitals Boosted Covid Deaths by Euthanizing Patients The U.S. will very likely fight a 3-front war against Russia, China and Iran, Palantir's Alex Karp says Middle East War: Next Steps For Israel And Will Iran Blockade The Straits Of Hormuz Ford forced to shutter factories amid worrying parts shortages: 'Hand-to-mouth right now' 7 Issues On The G7 Agenda: The Big Topics Albanese And Trump Could Discuss Dark-Money Network Funneled Millions Into 'No Kings' Nationwide Color Revolution Operation House Republicans Probe China-Based Billionaire Allegedly Bankrolling Anti-ICE Riots Did Iranian ballistic missiles hit the Dimona nuclear reactor. Rep. Green Letter to DoD IG Demands Answers On K2 Base Toxins “Israel is DESTROYING itself by attacking IRAN and millions could die” Col. Douglas Macgregor How Boeing 787 Whistleblower's Disaster Warning Was Ignored | Israel Says Another Missile Barrage Launched From Iran Overnight, Casualties Rise 2025 Annotated Bilderberg Members List Major Iranian Missile Impacts On Israel; IAEA Warns Radioactive Contamination Observed At Natanz

Religion
See other Religion Articles

Title: ROMANS 13 - THE TWO MINUTE REBUTTAL
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/2minute.htm
Published: Sep 22, 2007
Author: Embassy of Heaven
Post Date: 2007-09-22 22:15:01 by AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt
Keywords: Christianity, Resistance
Views: 1492
Comments: 69

The Two Minute Rebuttal

Romans 13

Let's say Apostle Paul was telling the Church, "Be subject to the secular government," which at that time was the Roman Empire. And he was also saying, "Rome is not a terror to good works, but to the evil. The Roman centurion does not swing his sword in vain. Therefore, do good and you shall have praise of the same."

I pose only one question, Why was Apostle Paul beheaded by a Roman Centurion if he was preaching, "Be subject to Rome"? The Roman government would have no cause to behead him.

On the other hand, if Paul was beheaded because he was an "evildoer," why is an "evildoer" writing in our Holy Book? We better purge him out of there. We better clean up the Holy Scriptures. We better remove Romans 13 because it was written by an "evildoer."

No, I don't believe for a minute that Paul was telling the Church to be subject to the Roman Empire. Nor do I believe Paul was an evildoer. Paul was beheaded for promoting a rival government. It has to be. The secular authorities killed him because he was establishing another government, the Kingdom of Heaven.

Paul would be a hypocrite if he were saying to obey the secular authorities in Romans 13. It is inconsistent with his other writings. In Romans 12, Paul tells us, "do not be conformed to this world" (Romans 12:2). Obeying the secular authorities certainly means conforming to the world. In 2 Corinthians, Chapter 6:14-17, Paul says, "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers, for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? . . . Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you." We cannot cut our ties with the world and still be subject to them. "We ought to obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

What is the study of the Holy Bible from beginning to end? It is God's people rebelling against Him and seeking to be like the Kingdoms of this world. Again and again, they are brought into harsh slavery because of their disobedience. Chasing after the Kingdoms of this world leads to death. Only the Kingdom of Heaven is an everlasting government.

Christ's government is here right now. It is His government that every soul is to be subject to. Turn away from sin and come out from the governments of the world. "Be subject unto the higher powers within Ecclesia, within Christ's government." (See Hebrews 13:7 and 13:17).

http://romans13.embassyofheaven.com/2minute.htm

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 61.

#1. To: AllTheKings'HorsesWontDoIt (#0)

Well done - thank you.

Point. Set. Match.

Game Over.

Lod  posted on  2007-09-22   22:25:34 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So where does King David and his attitude towards the authority of Saul figure in?

Even though David was picked by God, he didn't lift a hand against Saul-- because Saul was the anointed authority.

IMO, Paul is telling us that regardless of who our leaders are, its all in Gods plan re authority. Looking at Romans 13:7, he's saying pay tribute to who it is owed, pay customs or trade tariffs where due, fear, meaning reverence or awe of those who who should be revered, and honor those to whom honor is due.

Recall that Saul was not what God had in mind for the people--they wanted a king and they wanted it to be Saul and God went along with them. He didn't have to, but it was to make a point to them, I believe.

I believe we make a real mistake, from God's standpoint, when we decide to go against the authorities He's established.

And with that said, I do believe there are instances where we are not to go along with them--and that is in going against Gods' word.

rowdee  posted on  2007-09-22   23:40:46 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

So where does King David and his attitude towards the authority of Saul figure in?

Even though David was picked by God, he didn't lift a hand against Saul-- because Saul was the anointed authority.

IMO, Paul is telling us that regardless of who our leaders are, its all in Gods plan re authority. Looking at Romans 13:7, he's saying pay tribute to who it is owed, pay customs or trade tariffs where due, fear, meaning reverence or awe of those who who should be revered, and honor those to whom honor is due.

Recall that Saul was not what God had in mind for the people--they wanted a king and they wanted it to be Saul and God went along with them. He didn't have to, but it was to make a point to them, I believe.

I believe we make a real mistake, from God's standpoint, when we decide to go against the authorities He's established.

And with that said, I do believe there are instances where we are not to go along with them--and that is in going against Gods' word.

If you believe this, as do many proclaiming Christians, why are we in Iraq and 127 different other countries trying to transform the government that GOD put in place?

Freedomsnotfree  posted on  2007-09-23   12:50:56 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Because God is in charge. He uses the good, as well as evil, to work His purposes.

rowdee  posted on  2007-09-23   15:31:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Because God is in charge. He uses the good, as well as evil, to work His purposes

Then from your point of view, we sould have stayed out of Iraq because GOD put Saddam in power and that is/was his will? Don't get me wrong...I firmly believe we should never have invaded Iraq, but it may be for a different reason than you. What are your thoughts?

Freedomsnotfree  posted on  2007-09-23   16:06:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Then from your point of view, we sould have stayed out of Iraq because GOD put Saddam in power and that is/was his will? Don't get me wrong...I firmly believe we should never have invaded Iraq, but it may be for a different reason than you. What are your thoughts?

I, too, believe we should never have invaded Iraq. That is a sovereign nation that had never done us wrong thereby needing 'self defense'. I don't mean for a minute that Saddam was a good guy and should have been ruler, but I believe God used our sonofabitch to take out that evil.

You mentioned earlier about all the wrong that our nation been doing, i.e., the killing of babies thru abortion, etc. Absolutely evil and God will deal with all involved in His own good time and way. Matter of fact, there are no doubt being recordings made of this generation's wheat and tares.

There will be only one perfect ruler, but He isn't here yet ruling. As much as David was a man after God's heart, he did many wrong things. And Solomon, the one who asked for wisdom when David died, went against so many of God's rules for kings. God could tell the difference between David's heart and Solomon's heart--Solomon was excluded from being line descendant to our Messiah. And yet, God used Solomon for His purposes.

We can sit and second guess why God does what He does, but it's foolish, IMO, to do so.

Regarding this passage in Romans, Paul seems to be telling the jewish christians and gentile christians at Rome to act as christians by obeying law and order. The Romans were down on christians and jews and it was going to get a whole lot worse. The jews were always trying to rebel and that was something Romans would not tolerate. And at that time, the Romans considered the christians but a sect or branch of judaism.

Dead rebellious christians at such an early stage of christianity would have been unable to get the Gospel spread.

And for people to be lawless or take the law in their hands has to be seen by God as chaos, and He is about the ordered nature of things.

IMO....

rowdee  posted on  2007-09-23   16:19:42 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

...so when our founders stood up to the king and declared their independence, they were being disobedient to GOD?

Freedomsnotfree  posted on  2007-09-23   16:41:44 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I believe I noted earlier there were times that it wasn't wrong, such as going against God's laws. Reaching back to studies of long ago in my younger days, the Declaration of Independence was but one of a long-running list petititons of grievances against the kings--generally, IIRC, it was complaints about forms of government or taxes, i.e., tea by way of example, or whiskey.

But the Declaration was the culminating instrument and speaks out against the king's being against Gods laws or natures laws.

That said, just because we don't like some law that is written or some judge's ruling, isn't license for us to all grab the muskets and head for DC. Even the founders provided examples for petioning the redress of grievances.

Furthermore, no doubt the nation is fairly evenly split on what is or isn't 'good government'. The quiet acquiesence of previous generations by sitting on their duffs and letting gubmint 'do it' is about like those Israelites demanding they get Saul for a leader.......God let them have it. Moses, according to Deuteronomy explained the costs of doing it their way; they still wanted it, so they got to suffer the consequences.

Just so ya know, I despise and loathe most everything feeble gubmint does and has done; ditto for much of what various state gubmints have done. And further, I loathe and despise the citizenry who are too lazy to get off their asses and become more active in trying to get things changed.

But in the meantime, I accept that God is in charge overall. And so long as I am following His words, and I'm dealt a bad hand by gubmint, I know He'll take care of me, and He sure as hell is gonna take care of 'them'. Not on my time schedule, but on His.

rowdee  posted on  2007-09-23   17:39:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Furthermore, no doubt the nation is fairly evenly split on what is or isn't 'good government'.

Congress approval rating = 11%

Executive/Bush approval rating = 29%

The country overwhelmingly disapproves the government.

Romans 13 is a difficult scripture ... Bush is a tyrant.

noone222  posted on  2007-09-23   17:45:12 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I found this in an online edition of William Barclay's "The Daily Study Bible" series. Barclay was a lecturer at the University of Glasgow; a biblical scholar. It seems like I read something negative about him a long time ago, but I also know a minister's son who thought he was good.

I'm not sure when Barclay existed, datewise. The Daily Study Bible series was published here in the states IIRC in 1955. It isn't 'dry' reading IMO. I put a part of it in bold (a couple of sentences) where he seems to get into the heart of the matter.

Anyways, this was from his comments on The Letter to the Romans:

THE CHRISTIAN AND THE STATE

Rom. 13:1-7

Let everyone render due obedience to those who occupy positions of outstanding authority, for there is no authority which is not allotted its place by God, for the authorities which exist have been set in their places by God. So he who sets himself up against authority has really set himself up against God's arrangement of things. Those who do set themselves against authority will receive condemnation upon themselves. For the man who does good has nothing to fear from rulers, but the man who does evil has. Do you wish to be free of fear of authority? Do good and you will enjoy praise from authority, for any servant of God exists for your good. If you do evil, then you must fear. For it is not for nothing that the man set in authority bears the sword, for he is the servant of God, and his function is to vent wrath and vengeance on the man who does evil. So, then, it is necessary for you to submit yourself, not because of the wrath, but for the sake of your own conscience.

For this same reason you must pay your taxes too; for those set in authority are the servants of God, and continue to work for that very end. Give to all men what is due to them. Give tribute to those to whom tribute is due; pay taxes to those to whom taxes are due. Give fear to those to whom fear is due. Give honour to those to whom honour is due.

At first reading this is an extremely surprising passage, for it seems to counsel absolute obedience on the part of the Christian to the civil power. But, in point of fact, this is a commandment which runs through the whole New Testament. In 1Tim. 2:1-2, we read: "I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, for kings and for all who are in high positions; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way." In Tit. 3:1 the advice to the preacher is: "Remind them to be submissive to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for any honest work." In 1 Pet. 2:13-17 we read: "Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to praise those who do right. For it is Gods will that by doing right you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men.... Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the emperor."

We might be tempted to argue that these passages come from a time when the Roman government had not begun to persecute the Christians. We know, for instance, in the Book of Acts that frequently, as Gibbon had it, the tribunal of the pagan magistrate was often the safest refuge against the fury of the Jewish mob. Time and again we see Paul receiving protection at the hands of impartial Roman justice. But the interesting and the significant thing is that many years, and even centuries later, when persecution had begun to rage and Christians were regarded as outlaws, the Christian leaders were saying exactly the same thing.

Justin Martyr (Apology 1:17) writes, "Everywhere, we, more readily than all men, endeavour to pay to those appointed by you the taxes, both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Jesus. We worship only God, but in other things we will gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that, with your kingly power, you may be found to possess also sound judgment." Athenagoras, pleading for peace for the Christians, writes (chapter 37): "We deserve favour because we pray for your government, that you may, as is most equitable, receive the kingdom, son from father, and that your empire may receive increase and addition, until all men become subject to your sway." Tertullian (Apology 30) writes at length: "We offer prayer for the safety of our princes to the eternal, the true, the living God, whose favour, beyond all other things, they must themselves desire.... Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection for the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest--whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish." He goes on to say that the Christian cannot but look up to the emperor because he "is called by our Lord to his office." And he ends by saying that "Caesar is more ours than yours because our God appointed him." Arnobius (4: 36) declares that in the Christian gatherings "peace and pardon are asked for all in authority."

It was the consistent and official teaching of the Christian Church that obedience must be given to, and prayers made for, the civil power, even when the wielder of that civil power was a Nero.

What is the thought and belief at the back of this?

(i) In Paul's case there was one immediate cause of his stressing of civil obedience. The Jews were notoriously rebellious. Palestine, especially Galilee, was constantly seething with insurrection. Above all there were the Zealots; they were convinced that there was no king for the Jews but God; and that no tribute must be paid to anyone except to God. Nor were they content with anything like a passive resistance. They believed that God would not be helping them unless they embarked on violent action to help themselves. Their aim was to make any civil government impossible. They were known as the dagger-bearers. They were fanatical nationalists sworn to terrorist methods. Not only did they use terrorism towards the Roman government; they also wrecked the houses and burned the crops and assassinated the families of their own fellow-Jews who paid tribute to the Roman government.

In this Paul saw no point at all. It was, in fact, the direct negation of all Christian conduct. And yet, at least in one part of the nation, it was normal Jewish conduct. It may well be that Paul writes here with such inclusive definiteness because he wished to dissociate Christianity altogether from insurrectionist Judaism, and to make it clear that Christianity and good citizenship went necessarily hand in hand.

(ii) But there is more than a merely temporary situation in the relationship between the Christian and the state. It may well be true that the circumstances caused by the unrest of the Jews are in Paul's mind, but there are other things as well. First and foremost, there is this--no man can entirely dissociate himself from the society in which he lives and has a part. No man can, in conscience, opt out of the nation. As a part of it, he enjoys certain benefits which he could not have as an individual; but he cannot reasonably claim all the privileges and refuse all the duties. As he is part of the body of the Church. he is also part of the body of the nation; there is no such thing in this world as an isolated individual. A man has a duty to the state and must discharge it even if a Nero is on the throne.

(iii) To the state a man owes protection. It was the Platonic idea that the state existed for the sake of justice and safety and secured for a man security against wild beasts and savage men. "Men," as it has been put, "herded behind a wall that they might be safe." A state is essentially a body of men who have covenanted together to maintain certain relationships between each other by the observance of certain laws. Without these laws and the mutual agreement to observe them, the bad and selfish strong man would be supreme; the weaker would go to the wall; life would become ruled by the law of the jungle. Every ordinary man owes his security to the state, and is therefore under a responsibility to it.

(iv) To the state ordinary people owe a wide range of services which individually they could not enjoy. It would be impossible for every man to have his own water, light, sewage, transport system. These things are obtainable only when men agree to live together. And it would be quite wrong for a man to enjoy everything the state provides and to refuse all responsibility to it. That is one compelling reason why the Christian is bound in honour to be a good citizen and to take his part in all the duties of citizenship.

(v) But Paul's main view of the state was that the Roman Empire was the divinely ordained instrument to save the world from chaos. Take away that Empire and the world would disintegrate into flying fragments. It was in fact the pax Romana, the Roman peace, which gave the Christian missionary the chance to do his work. Ideally men should be bound together by Christian love; but they are not; and the cement which keeps them together is the state.

Paul saw in the state an instrument in the hand of God, preserving the world from chaos. Those who administered the state were playing their part in that great task. Whether they knew it or not they were doing God's work, and it was the Christian's duty to help and not to hinder.

THE DEBTS WHICH MUST BE PAID AND THE DEBT WHICH NEVER CAN BE PAID

Rom. 13:8-10

Owe no man anything, except to love each other; for he who loves the other man has fulfilled the law. The commandments, You must not commit adultery, You must not kill, You must not steal, You must not covet, and any other commandment there may be, are all summed up in this saying--You must love your neighbour as yourself. Love does no harm to its neighbour. Love is, therefore, the complete fulfilment of the law.

The previous passage dealt with what might be called a man's public debts. Rom. 13:7 mentions two of these public debts. There is what Paul calls tribute, and what he calls taxes. By tribute he means the tribute that must be paid by those who are members of a subject nation. The standard contributions that the Roman government levied on its subject nations were three. There was a ground tax by which a man had to pay, either in cash or in kind, one-tenth of all the grain, and one fifth of the wine and fruit produced by his ground. There was income tax, which was one per cent of a man's income. There was a poll tax, which had to be paid by everyone between the ages of fourteen and sixty five. By taxes Paul means the local taxes that had to be paid. There were customs duties, import and export taxes, taxes for the use of main roads, for crossing bridges, for entry into markets and harbours, for the right to possess an animal, or to drive a cart or wagon. Paul insists that the Christian must pay his tribute and his taxes to state and to local authority, however galling it may be.

Then he turns to private debts. He says, "Owe no man anything." It seems a thing almost unnecessary to say; but there were some who even twisted the petition of the Lord's Prayer, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors," into a reason for claiming absolution from all money obligations. Paul had to remind his people that Christianity is not an excuse for refusing our obligations to our fellow men; it is a reason for fulfilling them to the utmost.

He goes on to speak of the one debt that a man must pay every day, and yet, at the same time, must go on owing every day, the debt to love each other. Origen said: "The debt of love remains with us permanently and never leaves us; this is a debt which we both discharge every day and for ever owe." It is Paul's claim that if a man honestly seeks to discharge this debt of love, he will automatically keep all the commandments. He will not commit adultery, for when two people allow their physical passions to sweep them away, the reason is, not that they love each other too much, but that they love each other too little; in real love there is at once respect and restraint which saves from sin. He will not kill, for love never seeks to destroy, but always to build up; it is always kind and will ever seek to destroy an enemy not by killing him, but by seeking to make him a friend. He will never steal, for love is always more concerned with giving than with getting. He will not covet, for covetousness (epithumia) is the uncontrolled desire for the forbidden thing, and love cleanses the heart, until that desire is gone.

---------------------------------

Honestly, I'd not given this subject matter much though, other than a few months ago I started praying for our national leaders. If anybody needs prayer, it is surely that whole mess.

Somewhere along the line, I had come across or read, most likely here, something about oaths of office. And a 'light bulb' moment came on as it dawned upon me the connection between not taking the name of the Lord in vain and what these yahoos were doing, i.e., they swear 'so help me God' that they will protect and defend.

It was hard to get into, believe me, because I despise so much of what they say and do. But just sitting back and bitching about it doesn't get very far, and it is not practical or is near impossible to camp out on all their doorsteps until 'they get it'.

And certainly, prayer is not the only thing one can or should do. But truthfully, I don't recall ever hearing a 'religious leader' asking for the people to pray for our leaders, whether they were the best things since hotcakes were invented or the worst thing since Nero.

rowdee  posted on  2007-09-24   14:57:23 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

It is absolutely Biblical to pray for our public leaders. However, this nation would not have been created were it not for men who fought for their Freedom to escape a "Nero."

I can not, as a Christian, believe Paul meant to obey all civil authorities regardless of their immorality or the consequences. Will you watch as your children are incarcerated into concentration camps or murdered. I won't and I never will.

Therefore, I can only conclude that the passages quoted are wrong, and if they are wrong, then they are not of God, and you know what that means. [For one it means I'm no longer calling myself a "christian"] But that isn't going to happen so there has to be another explanation.......

For me to believe Paul at face value, I would also believe that The Bible is a misguided un-supernatural book of history and morals, of which I am no longer ppart.

However, I will never renounce my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit...but something is seriously wrong with the good book. Any enlightenment ATKHWDI is welcome because I am at a total loss......

IndieTX  posted on  2007-09-24   15:13:50 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

I don't believe Paul nor the others are telling you to stand by and wave to your kids as they are either murdered or go to camps. God gave us brains to use and the responsibility of caring for our children.

I believe you'll find elsewhere that its said to submit so long as it doesn't go against Gods laws/laws of nature.

Over-reacting or over-stating a non-existent problem or yet-to=be-existent problem doesn't seem to help with understanding what was written by more than one Apostle. And I believe it was Irenaeus I read (early church father/leader) who indicated this was their understanding as well.

Another thing I found interesting last night as I visited around the web, was some of the old petitions to the King--even as they bitched about non- representation, for instance, they were respectful, and cordial in their words and best wishes and indications of being servants, if you will, to the King. There was none of the macho "just come over here and i'll kick your ass' attitude. They were honorable men in how they dealth with authority, even as it led, years later, to the American Revolution.

rowdee  posted on  2007-09-24   15:59:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Well that's because you get more bears with honey and everyone was polite back then pretty much in their writing especially....unless they got riled...and they did..which is why the AR. Stating my response to a future problem is what this 4um is about..discussing issues. It is not overreacting. The interpretations of what the Apostles meant in the history of the period can not be taken literally today. Especially today. And yes Paul's words WOULD have us standby and watch our kids taken into custody illegally or killed by the authorities if taken literally, which is why the interpretion is wrong or the apostles were wrong.

IndieTX  posted on  2007-09-24   17:44:01 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

        There are no replies to Comment # 61.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 61.

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]