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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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.