Is there a Christian political philosophy?

[RDKirk]

I think the problem is that some translations make you think one becomes a priest or a king by matter of faith, but if you’ve actually read the Bible then it is clear that there is an order of succession in both offices, even if the cornerstone of it all, is faith in Christ of course.

I would not say it's an "order of succession" at all. "Order of succession" would mean that all the edicts of the earthly king originate with Christ.

Christ is the Head directly connected to His body as an entirely different chain of command, and the King is outside that chain of command.

Again, we are ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven assigned to the kingdoms of earth to proclaim the glories of our own King and nation.

 

[jonojim1337]

I don’t follow this argument at all.

The prophecy is about a Greek kingdom being divided into four parts and a particular blasphemous individual appearing. According to the dream, this has happened once. But you might believe history repeats itself so you do you.

The context of Matthew 18:8-9 (the cutting off of hands passage) is clearly the entire Body of Christ, not any individual member. The context is Matthew 18:15-20, which talks about removing church members through excommunication. When parts of the Body of Christ become diseased, they are to be removed.

The first time the cutting off of hands analogy appears, however, is Matthew 5:29, and the context is Christ’s followers purging sin from themselves by following even harsher standards than that of the scribes and Pharisees. The analogy is meant to tell us how much we should despise sin in the flesh, and the zeal we should have in getting rid of it, not to inspire literal amputations. We are to be perfect as Our Heavenly Father is perfect.

Neither passage in Matthew has any bearing on the meaning of Romans 13, which is a direct command given to believers in order to preserve the order and dignity of the church. One mocks these instructions at their own peril of judgment by Our Lord on behalf of the Holy Spirit who gave those instructions to Paul.

I don’t think stealing from Caesar is a good idea.

 

[jonojim1337]

I would not say it's an "order of succession" at all. "Order of succession" would mean that all the edicts of the earthly king originate with Christ.

Guess you haven’t read much history.

Christ is the Head directly connected to His body as an entirely different chain of command, and the King is outside that chain of command.

Again, we are ambassadors of the Kingdom of Heaven assigned to the kingdoms of earth to proclaim the glories of our own King and nation.

You’re a witness. Being a king is an entirely different ballgame.

 

[linux.poet]

I don’t think stealing from Caesar is a good idea.

Continuing to produce non-sequiturs does not support the argument produced by previous non-sequitors. The human mind is fully capable of making things up and stating endless unrelated matters to avoid swallowing one’s ego and ending an otherwise unproductive argument.

Since I believe the authority of the Scripture to be superior to that of history, I see no need to continue shuffling grains of sand. The matter of submission to the Word of God as revealed in the Scripture must be learned, and continuing to entertain an argument against what is clearly stated by Our Lord in Romans 13:1-2 is throwing pearls to pigs. I have made my point. May the Lord show the truth to those who do not believe His Word, and would mock it.

 

[jonojim1337]

Continuing to produce non-sequiturs does not support the argument produced by previous non-sequitors. The human mind is fully capable of making things up and stating endless unrelated matters to avoid swallowing one’s ego and ending an otherwise unproductive argument.

Since I believe the authority of the Scripture to be superior to that of history, I see no need to continue shuffling grains of sand. The matter of submission to the Word of God as revealed in the Scripture must be learned, and continuing to entertain an argument against what is clearly stated by Our Lord in Romans 13:2 is throwing pearls to pigs. I have made my point. May the Lord show the truth to those who do not believe His Word, and would mock it.

I think the Scripture is pretty clear on this point. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

 

[linux.poet]

I think the Scripture is pretty clear on this point. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

I don’t follow.

Basically the argument I’m reading from these posts is “Romans 13 is not the basis of Christian political philosophy because some rulers are evil.” This argument strikes me as absurd, because Scripture is Scripture - I mean, if you reject the authority of the Apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit who wrote those words, I have nothing more to say because that is the basis of my argument. On the other hand, if you accept Paul’s authority in Romans 13:1-7 then I also have nothing more to say, because you agree with me.

Now if we back up, I stated that Matthew 5 and 18 had no relationship to Romans 13, and claiming that one had any bearing on the other is a non-sequitur. Stating that “I don’t think stealing from Caesar is a good idea” is a non-sequitor because it doesn’t follow from either passage or what I said. Now I think I know what is being argued, that we should not steal from Caesar and cut off our hands to avoid doing so, which would be in obedience to Romans 13. In that case you would agree with me, but also disagree because I believe we can get rid of the sin of stealing without cutting our hands off. But I don’t know that. Neither Romans 13 nor Matthew 5 or 18 mention stealing from Caesar at all. Hence, bringing stealing from Caesar up is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with what we were previously talking about.

Now, stealing from Caesar is against Scripture, yes:

19 The scribes and the chief priests tried to lay hands on Him that very hour, and yet they feared the people; for they were aware that He had spoken this parable against them. 20 And so they watched Him closely, and sent spies who pretended to be righteous, in order that they might catch Him in some statement, so that they could hand Him over to the jurisdiction and authority of the governor. 21 And the spies questioned Him, saying, “Teacher, we know that You speak and teach correctly, and You are not partial to anyone, but You teach the way of God on the basis of truth. 22 Is it permissible for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?” 23 But He saw through their trickery and said to them, 24 “Show Me a denarius. Whose image and inscription does it have?” They said, “Caesar’s.” 25 And He said to them, “Then pay to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” 26 And they were unable to catch Him in a statement in the presence of the people; and they were amazed at His answer, and said nothing.

 

[jonojim1337]

I don’t follow.

Basically the argument I’m reading from these posts is “Romans 13 is not the basis of Christian political philosophy because some rulers are evil.” This argument strikes me as absurd, because Scripture is Scripture - I mean, if you reject the authority of the Apostle Paul and the Holy Spirit who wrote those words, I have nothing more to say because that is the basis of my argument. On the other hand, if you accept Paul’s authority in Romans 13:1-7 then I also have nothing more to say, because you agree with me.

Now if we back up, I stated that Matthew 5 and 18 had no relationship to Romans 13, and claiming that one had any bearing on the other is a non-sequitur. Stating that “I don’t think stealing from Caesar is a good idea” is a non-sequitor because it doesn’t follow from either passage or what I said. Now I think I know what is being argued, that we should not steal from Caesar and cut off our hands to avoid doing so, which would be in obedience to Romans 13. In that case you would agree with me, but also disagree because I believe we can get rid of the sin of stealing without cutting our hands off. But I don’t know that. Neither Romans 13 nor Matthew 5 or 18 mention stealing from Caesar at all. Hence, bringing stealing from Caesar up is a non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with what we were previously talking about.

Now, stealing from Caesar is against Scripture, yes:

It simply follows that any “authority” that is stealing from Caesar cannot be considered a legitimate authority as that is breaking God’s Word.

 

[linux.poet]

It simply follows that any “authority” that is stealing from Caesar cannot be considered a legitimate authority as that is breaking God’s Word.

No, that is a non-sequitur because the authority of Caesar no longer exists. The Roman Empire has long since collapsed and is no longer a functional political entity. The few remaining denarii are in private collections or museums. It is absurd to consider rendering non-functioning currency to a nonexistent government.

Romans 13 and the principle expressed in Luke apply to all governments a Christian might find themselves under. That is the point behind such passages.

 

[jonojim1337]

No, that is a non-sequitur because the authority of Caesar no longer exists. The Roman Empire has long since collapsed and is no longer a functional political entity. The few remaining denarii are in private collections or museums. It is absurd to consider rendering non-functioning currency to a nonexistent government.

Romans 13 and the principle expressed in Luke apply to all governments a Christian might find themselves under. That is the point behind such passages.

That’s just wrong and the authority of Caesar does not rely on the number of denari in circulation.

 

[linux.poet]

That’s just wrong and the authority of Caesar does not rely on the number of denari in circulation.

I see no point with arguing with insane posts.

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: The Fall of Rome

Gradual decline or shattering catastrophe?

www.bbc.co.uk

Roman Empire - Expansion, Decline, Legacy | Britannica

Roman Empire - Expansion, Decline, Legacy: Who were the Five Good Emperors of the Roman Empire? The Five Good Emperors of Rome were Marcus Cocceius Nerva (reigned 96–98), Trajan (98–117), Hadrian (117–138), Antoninus Pius (138–161), and Marcus Aurelius (161–180). Their non-hereditary...

www.britannica.com

One cannot steal from Caesar what does not belong to him, and what belongs to him is denarii. One cannot steal nonexistent denarii from a Caesar who does not exist. One cannot be penalized for flaunting the authority of a nonexistent government.

Christ, not Caesar, is Lord, and He will judge the living and the dead.

 

[jonojim1337]

I see no point with arguing with insane posts.

BBC - History - Ancient History in depth: The Fall of Rome

Gradual decline or shattering catastrophe?

www.bbc.co.uk

Roman Empire - Expansion, Decline, Legacy | Britannica

Roman Empire - Expansion, Decline, Legacy: Who were the Five Good Emperors of the Roman Empire? The Five Good Emperors of Rome were Marcus Cocceius Nerva (reigned 96–98), Trajan (98–117), Hadrian (117–138), Antoninus Pius (138–161), and Marcus Aurelius (161–180). Their non-hereditary...

www.britannica.com

One cannot steal from Caesar what does not belong to him, and what belongs to him is denarii. One cannot steal nonexistent denarii from a Caesar who does not exist. One cannot be penalized for flaunting the authority of a nonexistent government.

Christ, not Caesar, is Lord, and He will judge the living and the dead.

Alotta stuff belongs to Caesar and it is bound to be taken back some day. You wanna hope it doesn’t happen, you do you.

 

[linux.poet]

Perhaps one would enjoy starting a new thread in the Conspiracy Theories subforum to discuss their loyalty to dead governments. I simply believe that a functioning Christian political philosophy must function in terms of living governments and active authorities, rather than dead ones.

Have a good day.

 

[jonojim1337]

Perhaps one would enjoy starting a new thread in the Conspiracy Theories subforum to discuss their loyalty to dead governments. I simply believe that a functioning Christian political philosophy must function in terms of living governments and active authorities, rather than dead ones.

Have a good day.

Not if they steal from Caesar.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

I don’t follow this argument at all.

The context of Matthew 18:8-9 (the cutting off of hands passage) is clearly the entire Body of Christ, not any individual member. The context is Matthew 18:15-20, which talks about removing church members through excommunication. When parts of the Body of Christ become diseased, they are to be removed.

The first time the cutting off of hands analogy appears, however, is Matthew 5:29, and the context is Christ’s followers purging sin from themselves by following even harsher standards than that of the scribes and Pharisees. The analogy is meant to tell us how much we should despise sin in the flesh, and the zeal we should have in getting rid of it, not to inspire literal amputations. We are to be perfect as Our Heavenly Father is perfect.

Neither passage in Matthew has any bearing on the meaning of Romans 13, which is a direct command given to believers in order to preserve the order and dignity of the church. One mocks these instructions at their own peril of judgment by Our Lord on behalf of the Holy Spirit who gave those instructions to Paul.

For salvation now it is individual, not community. There is the book of Revelation example of Jezebel. She wasn't cut off but disciplined. Around her it was the eye or the loins that she appealed to from individuals. Salvation is not corporate or are you Presbyterian? Nevertheless, a literal interpretation to honour Nero and Hitler... if folly.