Live by the sword?

[The Revolting Man]

Just going to add to what you said here.

One thing to keep in mind is that chapter and verse dividers were added later, so romans 13 should be read as a continuation of chapter 12, and in the last verse of chapter 12 it says So my question would be, where does that admonition stop, just with evil brethren, or with anything that is evil, whether that be brethren, or evil government? I think it's the latter.

The other thing I would like to point out is the word "continually" in Romans 13:6, So if the government we have is not "CONTINUALLY" carrying out those aforementioned tasks (praising good and punishing evil etc. With "good" and "evil" being defined by the bible!) then it is NOT, and can never be, the government that is mentioned in Romans 13!

Excellent points!

 

[AmbassadorforChrist]

This would mean that we are to overcome evil governments - with good. Not with weapons of war, but with righteous deeds.

Yes, but if we are overcoming evil government with good then eventually we would have control of said government, and would have to use "weapons of war" to keep the peace and implement Gods morality. I don't necessarily think that "weapons of war", and "righteous deeds" are mutually exclusive. After all, why would Christ tell Peter to buy a sword if he didn't intend for him to use it?

In a democracy most obviously, but ultimately in any system, the government somewhat reflects the mood of the people. The leaders are just some of the people. If the majority of the people are godly, the people in government will tend to be godly. And if the people are ungodly, their leaders will tend to be ungodly.

And this is why I personally think we should be living in a theocracy, of, by, and for God. People are fickle, and unstable, which is why we need our foundation to be built on Christ, and his perfect will as found in his word.

The way to change a country in a manner that is truly lasting, is to change society from the bottom up. To change individual people to be more godly, through personal good actions and ministry. The error of both political movements, and violent revolutions, is to try and change society from the top down.

On a personal level, if your neighbours all value you, you'll be a whole lot safer. You'll have more protection from threats from individuals. And even if the threat is from an evil government, your neighbours aren't going to report you to them. It may be that our focus should be on building our individual community reputation, and the reputation of Christians in general, through good deeds.

A good name is to be chosen rather than great riches,
and favour is better than silver or gold. (Proverbs 22:1)

I agree with the majority of everything you said here, but as ecclesiastes says

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heavens

so I think there is a time for revolution, but it's what happens after the revolution that counts. For example in my line of work, quite often people will want to save or keep a tree that is just not worth keeping, and so we recommend that they remove it and plant a new one, preferably one that is better suited for that location. It only works though if the new tree is actually planted, otherwise a wild tree may decide to grow that wont be as desirable.

Governments do "attend continually" to a whole host of different matters simultaneously. For instance, every government "continually" attempts to prevent and punishes murder and theft, through provision of police and court systems. This is continual attendance to enforcement of righteous laws that reflect scripture. The government doesn't stop opposing murder for a few days, then start again - they continually attend to this task of punishing evil.

Obviously, at the same time, every government also does evil acts of its own. And refuses to support good acts it should support. But I don't think that changes the fact that it is still "continually" opposing at least some important subsets of evil, those aspects of evil that it is the government's explicit role to oppose.

While at the same time promoting the murder of unborn babies, and sanctioning homosexuality, which they do "continually" both of which are morally reprehensible. In fact that is the very definition of calling evil good, and good evil, which according to Proverbs 17:15 is a abomination to our God! You can also look at Isaiah 5:20.

Then there is also the problem of them not praising those who do good (which they are also suppose to do continually), for example if a man marries a widow with children, and takes on all that responsibility of caring for them, but already had a wife he is called evil, yet that same guy could go sleep around with anyone who would have him and it is socially acceptable. And the examples could go on and on, I don't see any way for Romans 13 to fit ANY government that we currently have.

 

[MeganC]

However, if the Commonwealth had NOT been busy in Europe, there would have been no such power vacuum, and this Pacific war would not have started.

I support your general ideas here but disagree with this one.

Japan did not intend to start a war with their attacks on the Commonwealth and the Americans. They truly believed that a decisive attack would break the spirit of the Commonwealth and the Americans and this belief came about through their culture of Bushido in which a warrior would be defeated and then shamed into no longer fighting. It was reinforced with the Japanese victory in the Russo-Japanese War and if you read the Wiki page you'll see the cultural setting that the war was set against for the Japanese.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Japanese_War

The outcome of that war reinforced to the Japanese their version of American Manifest Destiny and they truly believed their actions were divinely inspired. They also believed they had a divine right to rule the Western Pacific.

So while a few Japanese military leaders understood that Japan was starting a war they could not win the majority of Japanese and their leaders saw the attack on Pearl Harbor and the conquest of European holdings in the Pacific as limited actions that were intended to show the West that Japan was now the boss in the Pacific.

The Japanese and the Germans also shared a deep misunderstanding of the American manufacturing industry. They thought it was wasteful that American companies would retool their factories every year to produce new cars and new products for the market. Meanwhile German and Japanese factories rarely retooled and would produce the same products for years and years.

The Japanese and Germans mocked the Americans for manufacturing washing machines, toy Erector sets, and for making a new model car every single year. They saw this as a weakness and a character flaw that Americans prized consumer goods over weapons.

Big mistake.

Once the Japanese attack had erased most of the isolationist and pacifist sentiments in the USA the consumer manufacturing industry went to war.

The world's largest auto factory in Chicago was the Dodge plant. Dodge put their expertise in retooling to work and as they produced their last 1941 automobile they tore up the assembly line behind it and retooled to build B-24 bombers. A mere seven days after the last car was produced the Dodge plant produced their first B-24 bomber.

Maytag washing machine company took their washing machine expertise and put it to work making turrets for aircraft and for anti-aircraft guns.

The Erector Set toy company retooled and started making Thompson submachine guns for the war effort.

In the space of a few weeks many key industries started war production. The rest of the nation followed and by the end of the war the US industrial base was literally producing more aircraft, bombs, weapons, and supplies than anyone could even use.

Japan and Germany drowned in American war materiel.

Their biases and their mistaken belief in their own superiority made them think they could strike a decisive blow against America and that the soft Americans would crumble. They also thought that the warships they destroyed at Pearl Harbor and elsewhere would take years and years to be replaced. Most of them only took a few months to be repaired and put back into service and the Japanese and Germans failed to grasp the potential of the American salvage effort that employed techniques obtained from building railroads and bridges.

In short, absent a war in Europe I believe the Japanese would have done the same things simply because their over-confidence and their misconceptions of the West and the American people would have led them to do these things anyway.

 

[FollowingHim]

This is crazy, Hitler has already invaded Poland, Austria and France. There was no making peace with that guy. The Soviets tried and he attacked them too.

He didn't invade Austria - they peacefully voted to join Germany, mainly for economic reasons. Both the Protestant and Catholic churches strongly supported this union, rightly or wrongly. Ignore the fake history in the Sound of Music movie, this was a peaceful event.

He invaded France in response to France declaring war on Germany - but also in the process to take back disputed land France had seized at the end of WW1. Completely understandable defensive move, any other leader would have done something similar in the circumstances.

Your Poland and Soviet Union comments would take more writing to dissect in detail than I should distract this thread with, particularly while including enough detail to avoid giving the false impression that I was supporting Hitler. I could delve into this part of the history but am choosing to stop going down that rabbit hole! That gets messy. As I said before, he did have designs in the East, and an ultimate goal of confronting the USSR in war, so I'm not really disputing that. It's no surprise the USSR was not ultimately able to make peace with him, he wanted to wipe them out.

 

[rockfox]

Hitler certainly had greater plans in the East - because he saw communism as a grave threat to Europe, and wished to knock out the USSR before they became unstoppable.

And he had good cause to. Stalin was preparing for an invasion of Eastern Europe (and had already invaded Finland), the communists had long been at work fomenting a revolution in Germany, and did have international ambisions.

every government "continually" attempts to prevent and punishes murder and theft

Unless it's the US government, then they excuse such behavior from the left while continually attempting to punish those who defend themselves against it.

The Japanese or Nazis would not have stopped their invasion of other countries. The fact that so much of the genocide happened after the United States was involved does not mean it wouldn't have happened without our involvement. Remember the Japs attacked us first.

More gradeschool propaganda. Hitler repeatedly attempted to negotiate for peace and leave France and the Brits repeatedly refused. Britain did not want peace, they wanted to destroy Germany. And after we had defeated them we genocided a few million of them.

As to the Japs, we drove them to war. We knew they were going to attack us and let it happen in order to have excuse to enter the war against Germany.

Bottom line: we choose the greater evil in WW2. We allied with someone who mass murdered more people before Hitler than Hitler ever would and would go on to murder 10x as many. In the process we committed many war atrocities of our own. Not a just war.

 

[rockfox]

I realize Samual doesn't want to get lost down the WW2 rabbit hole. But there is value in unpacking it. One can never look clearly at this subject until one gets past the WW2 propaganda; it's the founding narrative of our time. One which supplanted the original founding narrative of our country in the Revolution and justified going on a century of foreign interventions.

We were driven to war with Germany on a wave of propaganda and lies. But the American revolution was different. I'm not saying there wasn't propaganda; but it was a more principled war in pursuit of justice and defense of rights. Whether one agrees with it theologically or not, the rallying cry of 'No King But Jesus' was a fundamentally different and spiritual proposition than the sorts of things that drove us into foreign wars since; most of which were little more than bringing other countries into submission to this or that corporation or bank. The American Revolution is also much more similar to what we face today.

 

[FollowingHim]

One can never look clearly at this subject until one gets past the WW2 propaganda; it's the founding narrative of our time. One which supplanted the original founding narrative of our country in the Revolution and justified going on a century of foreign interventions.

The American Revolution was the founding narrative of the USA, but WW2 became a uniform "founding narrative" of almost the entire world. I agree it is very important to consider it critically.

 

[rockfox]

I have found the website www.rivalnations.org personally challenging. I do not agree with them on many issues, do use discernment when reading. However, the general thrust of their description of what the Kingdom of God is I find simple, clarifying and challenging.

They have an excellent article that collates the teachings of early Christians on the Kingdom of God, and violence. It is well worth reading. A couple of quotes from it:

But do read the entire article. It's all just quotes from early Christians, organised by category.

Thank you for those links. This is one of those subjects I still have unanswered questions on and it is good to see the perspective of the early church fathers.

That said, their opinions strike me a lot like their opinions on sex; they got carried away. You can see that in how they'd reject from the church a Christian soldier, contrary to Christ's own admonitions on the subject.

And the website author's piece on voting is so full of fundamental errors that it really causes me to question his wisdom and ability to reason clearly.

 

[FollowingHim]

That said, their opinions strike me a lot like their opinions on sex; they got carried away.

I agree, they go too far. But that makes it a valuable perspective to read, because it is extreme enough to challenge your own views and force you to find actual reasons to accept or reject each part of their views, or your own opposing views.

 

[rockfox]

I agree, they go too far. But that makes it a valuable perspective to read, because it is extreme enough to challenge your own views and force you to find actual reasons to accept or reject each part of their views, or your own opposing views.

Yes!

What's really telling is that they questioned it at all; clearly there is a problem there, enough that they made it a big issue. You can see this too by Christ's words that there are issues with being in the military. The problem today is modern Christians think nothing of it, blindly going with the flow.

There is a similar thing with theater; the early church fathers were rabidly against it. Most Christians think nothing is wrong with movies and acting and such but one only need look at Hollywood, how it's actors behave and their propaganda's affect on our society's morals to see that then as now theater was a hotbed of iniquity.

 

[Mojo]

The American Revolution is also much more similar to what we face today.

Yes, and no.
Much of the motivation for revolution wasn't for religious reasons or limitations on personal expressions of belief. Don't forget that many of the colonies pre and post revolution had state church connections. They were almost as oppressive as what many Brits were trying to escape when the colonies were first established. IIRC, Rhode Island was essential created to be a haven from the oppressive state church madates of other colonies. George Mason and other non conforming Baptists and other groups had to insist on a bill of rights before they signed off on the Constitution because many if the colonies were not recognizing religious and speech rights at that time.

Much of the Revolution was economic. Colonists were refusing to pay for the excesses of the Throne without representation and that spirit of revolt and armed resistance carried over even after the war was won. The Whiskey Rebellion was one such example. Washington sent in troops to quell it for fear that it would spill over into another revolution and an endless cycle of armed resistance.

 

[Mojo]

And this is why I personally think we should be living in a theocracy, of, by, and for God. People are fickle, and unstable, which is why we need our foundation to be built on Christ, and his perfect will as found in his word.

I would never choose to live in a theocracy. One only has to look at the Holy Roman Empire to see the extremes of that prospect.

Besides, just look at this tiny forum on a nondescript corner of the Internet. We supposedly all live and believe in the same faith but have flare ups of anger, discontent and disagreement. Expand that to a nation and it'll get even trickier. And, if there is a theocracy, who's theology will reign?

 

[steve]

We are simply proving that we cannot govern ourselves righteously.
True theocracy will take place in the Millennium.

 

[FollowingHim]

Hence why, until then, the best human government is the smallest human government. Humans cannot be trusted to even administer a theocracy. But we digress...

 

[PeteR]

Interesting discussion.

Three thought:

1. If Sodom had had 10 righteous men, it would not have been judged. If our change in government is judgment, how might our pursuit of righteousness alter things?

2. From Psalm 149:

Let the high praises of God be in their fnmouth,
And a two-edged sword in their hand,

7To execute vengeance on the nations
And punishment on the peoples,

8To bind their kings with chains
And their nobles with fetters of iron,

9To execute on them the judgment written;
This is an honor for all His godly ones.
fnPraise fnthe LORD!

Clearly indicates there us a time for the righteous to take up swords in the high calling of the King...

3. Ezekiel 20:33-44 and surrounding is one of many passages that point to a gathering and restoration of house of Israel. How might that play out for those seeking to walk in the ancient paths? Are current world events setting up to birth the millennual Kingdom by forcing out those who refuse evil? Serious question, because there are huge swaths of prophecy not yet fulfilled that deal with tribes coming home.

Christendom ignores them to peril... (I am not starting a debate, I'm asking a hard question.)

 

[MeganC]

Just a comment here: World War Two in Europe was just another in a long line of wars to unite Europe under one government.

The European Union is trying to do the same thing but without the war...although some of the EU Parliament members are discussing the idea of forcing the UK and Norway to join the EU. By military force if necessary.

 

[AmbassadorforChrist]

I would never choose to live in a theocracy. One only has to look at the Holy Roman Empire to see the extremes of that prospect.

Besides, just look at this tiny forum on a nondescript corner of the Internet. We supposedly all live and believe in the same faith but have flare ups of anger, discontent and disagreement. Expand that to a nation and it'll get even trickier. And, if there is a theocracy, who's theology will reign?

I don't know, Isaiah 33:22 makes it sound pretty good! And all you have to do is look at ancient Israel to see how well it can work. Yes there are going to be human errors in any government, but saying you don't want to live in a theocracy (aka obeying God instead of man) because it might turn into another "Holy Roman Empire" is the equivalent of a woman having a aoophorectomy because there is a history of ovarian cancer in her family!
Just because there is a possibility, or even likelihood of missing the target, doesn't mean we should stop aiming for the bullseye.

As for who's theology, well how about just implement the ten commandments, and their respective statutes and judgments? Is anyone going to argue that we shouldn't be following those?

We are simply proving that we cannot govern ourselves righteously.
True theocracy will take place in the Millennium.

I agree, we cannot govern ourselves righteously, that is why we follow Christ as king, and he instructs/governs us through his written word, and the holy spirit. We are already living in a theocracy if we are followers of God.

I don't know how many time I have used the scenario of "what if the government tells you to do something that God would not approve of, what would you do?" and without fail they all say "obey God" then I point out that obedience is doing what you are told, even when you don't agree or want to. So who is really your king/president/emperor?

Think about it this way, if our God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then if he was king in the beginning, then he is still king right now and we should be obeying him as such, NOT the antichrist government!

 

[Mojo]

I don't know, Isaiah 33:22 makes it sound pretty good! And all you have to do is look at ancient Israel to see how well it can work. Yes there are going to be human errors in any government, but saying you don't want to live in a theocracy (aka obeying God instead of man) because it might turn into another "Holy Roman Empire" is the equivalent of a woman having a aoophorectomy because there is a history of ovarian cancer in her family!
Just because there is a possibility, or even likelihood of missing the target, doesn't mean we should stop aiming for the bullseye.

As for who's theology, well how about just implement the ten commandments, and their respective statutes and judgments? Is anyone going to argue that we shouldn't be following those?

I agree, we cannot govern ourselves righteously, that is why we follow Christ as king, and he instructs/governs us through his written word, and the holy spirit. We are already living in a theocracy if we are followers of God.

I don't know how many time I have used the scenario of "what if the government tells you to do something that God would not approve of, what would you do?" and without fail they all say "obey God" then I point out that obedience is doing what you are told, even when you don't agree or want to. So who is really your king/president/emperor?

Think about it this way, if our God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then if he was king in the beginning, then he is still king right now and we should be obeying him as such, NOT the antichrist government!

If ancient Israel is the example, I rest my case.

As far as the 10 commandments being used as the supreme law, it still isn't simple enough. What constitutes a graven image? Do photographs count? Is the Sabbath Saturday or replaced by Sunday? Is adultery the modern or biblical definition? How exactly do you honor your mother and father? What's the exact definition of that? Taking the name of the Lord in vain? Does that mean never writing his name, never saying his name?

Someone's got to interpret and enforce those 10 commandments. I might not like the interpretation to some of those, nor like being held accountable to that interpretation. A secular government that leaves me alone to interpret scripture as the Holy Spirit leads is what I think is most realistic.

But to keep it on topic, would an armed rebellion against a theocratic government that interprets the Law differently than I do be appropriate?

 

[Mojo]

Are current world events setting up to birth the millennual Kingdom by forcing out those who refuse evil? Serious question, because there are huge swaths of prophecy not yet fulfilled that deal with tribes coming home.

This is a legitimate question because we may be powerless to stop whatever is coming if it's ordained by God.

However, I wouldn't fault someone who feels that fighting against the inevitable in the name of principle is honorable. I may join them. I still haven't reconciled pacifism and armed resistance.

 

[rockfox]

This is a legitimate question because we may be powerless to stop whatever is coming if it's ordained by God.

That brings up a huge question. I've long said the condemnations of Israel in Isaiah apply to us today. Maybe even more so. As far as I'm concerned we stand under judgement.

Does that mean we shouldn't resist the coming revolution? (being as God by Isaiah repeatedly told them not to resist but to surrender)

The problem is we're not looking at an exile or a foreign elite but rather extermination.

That and much of the problem we have today is that good men have surrendered to evil. Our go along to get along be nice and don't rock the boat approach has allowed evil to flourish. Maybe God is just ramping up the evil against us bit by bit until good men find their balls and do what they should have done all along by resisting!

Rhode Island was essential created to be a haven from the oppressive state church madates of other colonies

That's what I was taught, but a quick review revealed that he was expelled upon rightful conviction in a court of law of sedition (and also heracy, though I couldn't figure out what that was). So I'm starting to doubt just how oppressive it really was. I agree with the general thrust of what you said. But there was still a strong religious component. It bleeds through in their writings, their speeches and their justifications. Such is entirely absent today; well at least of a Christian perspective.

Humans cannot be trusted to even administer a theocracy.

Many of the early American colonies were theocracy's. They worked reasonably well. That's not to say such things never go too far in theocracies, they often did. Yet their fruit was the continued perseverance of their faith and nation. Our perspective today is colored by the modern principles of secular government. Yet it's fruit has been wicked beyond measure. Even the worst excesses of theocracy's can't hold a candle to the mass murder of our time (abortion), much less the degeneracy, loss of faith and breakdown in family formation and population.

Truth is, we live in a theocracy today. It's just an atheistic/satanic/secular humanist one. I'd vastly prefer living in a Christian theocracy. You can't separate the law from morals and sin. When justice is pure there is no difference between law and morality. And our very existence as a society and species depends upon community enforcement of sexual morals.