Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 24, 2010 16:57:36 GMT -5
Your question assumes that one man can rule over another and your question is "why". I don't believe one man has a right to rule over another. Unless the authority has been put there by God. (Like a family) Or if the man or men want the ruler. (Israelites wanting a king and God providing one) You claim that no man has the right to rule another, then you name two instances in which you believe that a man has the right to rule another. Allow me to interpret your answer and please tell me if this is correct: "By what right does one man rule another?" "By divine appointment or by consent." Is that complete and accurate? Yes. But one man has no right to rule another by force.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 24, 2010 22:45:08 GMT -5
It seems like you are referring to a monarchy. So the answer to your question is "no". By what right does one man rule another? There are authority structures that are God-given. And there are authority structures that are taken. This is a complex question you've asked, because the important thing here is not the "right" but your definition of the word "Rule". For example: No individual man has the "Right" to "rule" over another man in a tyrannical way, taking away his freedoms and rights unjustly. But as Michael has already tried to answer you, there are some authority structures in our lives that God Himself has put into place. Such as: In a home. A father should literally rule well over his own household, and is instructed to do so in Scripture. In fact, one of the qualifications for a pastor or elder can be found in 1 Timothy 5 and it says that he must be: 4 one who rules his own house well, having his children in submission with all reverence 5 (for if a man does not know how to rule his own house, how will he take care of the church of God?)In Luke 12:35-48, we find a parable from the Lord Jesus Himself illustrating the differences between a good "ruler" and a bad "ruler". From that parable and a similar one in Matthew 24, it is apparent at its very base that the idea of one man being a "ruler" over another isn't inherently bad in and of itself, it's how that ruler behaves himself with the authority that's been given him, WHATEVER the authority might be.... 1 Timothy 5: 17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.Stephen is it your position that the Word of God does not provide plenty of clear examples of God granting one man authority over another?
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 24, 2010 22:51:10 GMT -5
Once again Romans 13 will no doubt come up.
1 Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God’s minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. 5 Therefore you must be subject, not only because of wrath but also for conscience’ sake. 6 For because of this you also pay taxes, for they are God’s ministers attending continually to this very thing. 7 Render therefore to all their due: taxes to whom taxes are due, customs to whom customs, fear to whom fear, honor to whom honor.
These verses always strike a huge blow the "All government is inherently evil" crowd.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 24, 2010 23:01:39 GMT -5
Thankfully Peter also gave some good instruction and the people he was instructing were under a very tyrannical and wicked king:
11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, 12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. 15 For this is the will of God, that by doing good you may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men— 16 as free, yet not using liberty as a cloak for vice, but as bondservants of God. 17 Honor all people. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
Yes Peter told them to honor their wicked and despicable King!
Further he says:
18 Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh. 19 For this is commendable, if because of conscience toward God one endures grief, suffering wrongfully. 20 For what credit is it if, when you are beaten for your faults, you take it patiently? But when you do good and suffer, if you take it patiently, this is commendable before God. 21 For to this you were called, because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that you should follow His steps: 22 “ Who committed no sin, Nor was deceit found in His mouth”;
23 who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously;
Stephen my friend are you really willing to submit your views to the light of Scripture for examination? Once again I will state wholeheartedly that I'm not trying to "win" a debate. I'm not participating in a FORMAL debate with you. We're having a discussion. But if it were a debate this would be the round where it was over and all further arguments would be doing what the title of your thread said: "Protecting a position" and not seeking truth.......
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 25, 2010 10:17:35 GMT -5
Stephen my friend are you really willing to submit your views to the light of Scripture for examination? Yes. Actually, I could have thrown out two passages, congratulated myself and claimed victory as well long ago, too. But as you know, that is the beginning of the debate, not the end. So let's not be too hasty in crowning ourselves the victor. If you were really so confident in the outcome of a debate you would have accepted the challenge weeks ago. And you left out Titus 3:1.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 25, 2010 10:44:22 GMT -5
Stephen my friend are you really willing to submit your views to the light of Scripture for examination? Yes. Actually, I could have thrown out two passages, congratulated myself and claimed victory as well long ago, too. But as you know, that is the beginning of the debate, not the end. So let's not be too hasty in crowning ourselves the victor. If you were really so confident in the outcome of a debate you would have accepted the challenge weeks ago. And you left out Titus 3:1. I said I wasn't participating in a debate. If you would like to have a formal debate we could do it on TOL. That is a neutral site that allows a multitude of opinions and a forum for one on one debates.......
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 25, 2010 10:45:17 GMT -5
I'm merely attempting to have a discussion with a friend. I get tired of endless debates and wrangling over words and the meaning of words.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 25, 2010 10:47:02 GMT -5
I'd rather just cut to the chase. The Word of God is clear and the "All government is inherently evil" crowd has no ground to stand on. It's not a matter of "Declaring victory". That's your obsession not mine.
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 25, 2010 10:56:51 GMT -5
Yes. But one man has no right to rule another by force. Okay, so... you believe one man may rule another by divine appointment or by consent, and never by force. I am in general agreement. I, too, believe rule by force is immoral. Like you, I believe in rule by consent. But I do not believe in rule by divine appointment, because we humans have no universally acceptable, independently verifiable means of determining who may or may not be divinely appointed, and by what divinity. If we accept the currently propagated version of Romans 13, the very fact that a government exists at all equates to divine appointment. If we accept Luke 4, not a single government on earth can be divinely appointed. Every king in history has claimed that "God wanted him" on the throne. The Reformation Popes claimed authority the same way (and still do today). The Pharaoh's claimed to be gods. So did Nebuchadnezzar. The Japanese prime minister in WWII claimed to be appointed by God. Hitler claimed God's authority - and he was voted in democratically, BTW. Every English king claimed divine appointment, even by heredity. And what of those who do not believe in God at all? Even Christians can't agree on who is divinely appointed - how can we expect atheists to live under a ruler appointed by a god they don't even believe exists? Even though we disagree with their beliefs, don't they have basic human rights, too? And what about Buddhists? Muslims? Since we cannot disprove their holy texts any more than they can disprove ours, whose divine ruler is legitimate? Pounding a Bible and claiming "You MUST follow this ruler because he is appointed by God!" is precisely what gave us the Crusades. And that is precisely what we are accusing the Muslims of doing to us today with their Koran. So clearly, we cannot use our scripture (or any holy texts) as a basis to force others to live under the rule of someone to whom they do not consent, because: A) doing so makes us the ones who are using force to compel them to live under another's rule, and... B) you already said that rule by force was immoral and unacceptable. So I have presented an alternate point of view for your consideration, and now I ask you this - will you agree that "rule by divine appointment" is not a valid, verifiable right by which one man may rule another, and that rule by consent is the only practical method that may equally apply to all men?
|
|
Michael
Captain
Red Baron Fight XX and XXI Champion
Posts: 407
|
Post by Michael on Mar 25, 2010 11:47:05 GMT -5
Yes. But one man has no right to rule another by force. So I have presented an alternate point of view for your consideration, and now I ask you this - will you agree that "rule by divine appointment" is not a valid, verifiable right by which one man may rule another, and that rule by consent is the only practical method that may equally apply to all men? Sorry but I do not agree. Divine appointment could encompass the way you put it but it could also just be God nudging a certain individual in the way he wants.
|
|
noski
Captain
"Richthofen lived where the rest of us go , only in our greatest moments." Udet
Posts: 286
|
Post by noski on Mar 26, 2010 9:20:42 GMT -5
If God is truly guiding governments, how do men like Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Pho Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin get to be leaders? I agree with Stephen's last post. This country started with the premise that we would allow ourselves to be governed by our elected officials. But over the years we have become complacent and comfortable. I may have put this on another post, but we have not been a government 'of the people ' since November 1963...
|
|
|
Post by Stephen on Mar 26, 2010 9:50:31 GMT -5
Sorry but I do not agree. Divine appointment could encompass the way you put it but it could also just be God nudging a certain individual in the way he wants. If you believe in divine appointments to public office, why bother with elections? Let's just put anyone who thinks they've been "nudged" by some sort of god into public office.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 16:02:23 GMT -5
Sorry but I do not agree. Divine appointment could encompass the way you put it but it could also just be God nudging a certain individual in the way he wants. If you believe in divine appointments to public office, why bother with elections? Let's just put anyone who thinks they've been "nudged" by some sort of god into public office. That statement violates your own terms set forth in this debate. It presupposes a view your "debate opponent" doesn't hold.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 16:05:49 GMT -5
If God is truly guiding governments, how do men like Andrew Jackson, Stalin, Pho Pot, Hitler, Idi Amin get to be leaders? I agree with Stephen's last post. This country started with the premise that we would allow ourselves to be governed by our elected officials. But over the years we have become complacent and comfortable. I may have put this on another post, but we have not been a government 'of the people ' since November 1963... Nobody in this discussion is saying God is guiding "governments". Merely that God established GOVERNMENT in a generic sense for a reason. To punish those who do evil and protect the innocent. That is why there is and should be law.
|
|
KevinR
Group Commander
2003, 2009 Indy Squadron Champion
Posts: 753
|
Post by KevinR on Mar 26, 2010 16:14:47 GMT -5
Sorry but I do not agree. Divine appointment could encompass the way you put it but it could also just be God nudging a certain individual in the way he wants. If you believe in divine appointments to public office, why bother with elections? Let's just put anyone who thinks they've been "nudged" by some sort of god into public office. You know what is really discouraging about discussing politics with you. After all these years you still don't understand or get it. I've repeated myself to you hundreds of times I think over the years and you still either refuse to get it or refuse to accept it, one or the other. So here it is for you again: We (or at least me) are NOT saying that every government on earth is and has been established by God. We do NOT believe that every person who claims to be called by God to be king or leader should be. Here is the position for you again and it's different from the one you've said you were taught in Sunday School: God established GOVERNMENT. God established authority structures. Those authority structures have a job to do. God gave them that job. The Bible is plain about that and the verses I quoted you plainly show this. God did not establish Saddam. God did not establish the USSR. God did not establish the USA. God did not establish China. Some countries He might choose to bless from time to time more than others because the people within that country are more willing to turn to Him and ask for His leadership and His guidance. God's moral laws are still binding and good. We should still not murder, we should still not steal, we should still not commit adultery. If we do, and the law punishes us for it, THEY ARE DOING WHAT GOD CREATED THEM TO DO!!!!! If a government orders you to murder, steal, or commit adultery, you should fear God over the government and refuse. That is why the Scripture said "Fear God, honor the king." Please make sure you have read this entire statement if you wish to continue this discussion. Thank you.
|
|