Counting the cost...

[candle glow]

I've really enjoyed reading these comments.

I was not trying to make the case that America was some kind of sequel to Israel.

Actually, I feel that America DOES kinda represent Israel in a spiritual way, but not in the sense that they are some how God's holy, chosen people, but more so in the sense of looking at physical appearance and dogma.

Well the Word says in Samuel that God did not want to give them a king b/c He wanted to be their king but the people pleaded for it continuously. God ordained a king that He chose to work through...although it was not His perfect way.

Jen is very much right, here, about God's attitude towards people who want an earlthy physical king.

I think it's pretty clear that God has blessed the United States; how else would it climb to the top of the food chain and become the most powerful nation on Earth?

I very strongly disagree with this reasoning. Let's say you've got a room with 100 boxes of food in it and 10 people. The people are told to divide up the food however they want. At the end of the day you've got 8 people with a quarter of a box each, 1 person with three boxes, and the final person with 5 boxes.

You notice that the all the people have broken arms, legs, cuts, bruises, missing teeth, and torn clothes.

So, who did God bless in this situation?

Well, the first thing I would point you to is the word of God:

Romans 13:1

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

As with almost all teachings in the Bible, this one from Paul is definitely not an absolute. Consider this teaching from Peter:

ACTS 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Peter and the other apostles were commanded to stop teaching about Jesus, and the command came from those who were in authority over them.

Obviously, some kind of context MUST be present when we talk about submitting ourselves to government. By all means, obey traffic signals and anit-littering laws. Obey laws about not stealing and obey laws which are obviously good for people in general.

But the teachings of Jesus outweigh even Paul. If we feel Paul is telling us to submit to government laws which go against what Jesus taught, then we need to forsake Paul and follow Jesus.

Paul submitted himself to the Roman government which was persecuting and martyring Christians. We must submit ourselves to the authority of our governments and rebelling against that authority is rebelling against God:

I feel a bit disturbed by the connection you are making here. I don't think we must submit ourselves to governments which act in opposition to God, just because they claim authority over us, and I don't think that's what Paul was saying either.

I've read the Romans passage you are referring to and quite frankly it's confusing as to what he's even talking about. I get the feeling that some patriotic, over zealous monk probably "improved" the translation at some point throughout the ages.

The passaged talks about these "rulers" as though they are the direct ministers of God, commanding the people and punishing them, and "attending continually on this very thing". If they were really God's ministers they wouldn't even be in politics in the first place.

The whole passage is very confusing, spiritually. But, Paul does add a clause into the equation by saying that we should rending tribute, custom, fear, and honor to whom it is due. So, we get a caveat after all.

There IS some context to this submission. I won't submit myself to a government which isn't worthy, and I'll judge that worth based on their submission to God, or, as Paul puts it, their "attending continually as ministers of God".

I don't think 'allows' is the right word. Scripture says in many places that God appoints leaders:

Are all leaders appointed, or are some appointed while others are allowed? How do we know which leaders are appointed and which are not?

Can you say God didn't appoint Obama to the presidency?

Of course I can say that, unless you are suggesting every person who voted him in was acting in obedience to a leading from God to vote for him and that every person who did not vote for him were acting in disobedience.

 

[jenjen486]

I was praying last night and didnt feel I could say anymore on this subject, or I would be overstepping my boundaries of teaching men. But, what candleglow said was exactly what was on my mind, for the most part,so I appreciate you saying that. I appreciate both of you for wanting to reason out the Word together.

 

[thegospel4all]

The sovereignty of God can be a hard thing to grasp, understand and submit ourselves to.

I believe scripture is very clear, God created all things. He has ordained good and evil. He has appointed some to salvation and others to wrath, some to forgiveness and redemption and other to judgement and eternal separation from Him.

It is hard to both believe and understand but I do believe because His Word says so.

We often have a rose-colored view of our own nation. It was established, as every nation, for God's own purposes both in the past and now, not the least of which has been to spread The Gospel throughout the world. We often have a rose-colored view of our founding fathers, many of which named God as God in name only and chose what they would and would not believe from God's Word, ie; Thomas Jefferson.

Concerning it all, I want to follow our ultimate example and be as political or condemning of the ruling authorities as The Lord was.

 

[jenjen486]

Thank you gospel for sharing that. I had forgotten about that example of Jefferson creating his own bible. Something many people do today....its just in their hearts so its easier to hide.

 

[thegospel4all]

Thanks Jen,

I think also, reference submitting to authorities and the powers in governments, The Lord said that he was sending His disciples and apostles out into the world as lambs among wolves.

I spent 21 years active duty in the military and now 9 years as a police officer and know that there is a a line / lines where The Lord and His Word are concerned I will refuse to cross.

I knew in the military, that if I was ever in a unit, command or team that was tasked with attacking Israel, I would have to be locked up in the brig and/or Levinworth before I would lift a finger against God's people. The same applies as a police officer.

I believe days are coming like we've never seen, nor could imagine, if not for God's Word telling us so. We will be sorely tested tried and I believe, will by-in-large, be called to give our lives rather than bow to this world system and deny our Lord Jesus.

 

[candle glow]

I spent 21 years active duty in the military and now 9 years as a police officer and know that there is a a line / lines where The Lord and His Word are concerned I will refuse to cross.

I think this makes for an interesting example. gospel4all is under the authority of his commanding officers, and yet, he is also in a position of authority over the general public.

When we talk about authority, what does it really mean? Does God establish every teacher in every school who has authority over children, to teach them that God does not really exist?

Maybe. I could see the possibility of God doing something like that to see what we will do about it; to see who will be faithful and who will just go along with doing whatever the authorities tell them to do.

Perhaps something similar happens when any corrupt government comes along; God wants to see who will remain faithful and who will not.

BTW, gospel4all, I think the only part of your post I did not agree with was the comments about you not wanting to attack Israel because you don't want to attack God's people.

Aside from the fact that Christians really shouldn't be wanting to attack anyone, I don't see that people who reject Jesus can be called "God's people". I think this is a fairly minor difference and something that we can easily overcome by focusing on areas where we agree, but I'm just throwing it out there anyway.

 

[Michaelismyname]

Good topic.

I had a dream once where I was being led into a huge entertainment hall (like in a castle or something). I was in chains as a prisoner and dressed in rags. There was a whole gallery of wealthy people dressed up in fancy clothing and wigs. They were eating and drinking and laughing with one another.

I was led to the center of the room and then my head was chopped off and they all enjoyed it.

Upon awaking I felt a bit disturbed but had the same basic lesson Jen is sharing about here, about counting the cost.

Some of the more practical "count the cost" issues relate to secret disciplines like giving to charity, praying, and fasting.

Finances is also a HUGE issue which usually causes people to stumble. In the same chapter where Jesus talks about a king who goes to war but does not have enough soldiers to win or a person who starts a building project but does not have enough finances to finish, he says, "whosoever does not forsake all he owns cannot be my disciple". (Lk 14:33)

It's interesting that the word "disciple" literally means "one who is disciplined".

It looks to me like Jesus is telling people that if we are not prepared to deal decisively with our greed and materialism by literally forsaking all we have and sharing all things in common with other Christians, then we should not even start on the path of Christianity.

Jen, I think it's good that you mentioned family in your post, because I feel that is another one of the huge issues a lot of people deal with, because so often following Jesus involves significant life style changes (i.e. being born again) which family members may not only disagree with, but feel are "dangerous" (like forsaking all).

Because we love our family and our family loves us it can be extremely difficult to go against their desires for us. Count the cost.

we see as one in Christ Jesus

I think it is all too often forgotten in the wealthy west that we are called to lay down our lives - but it is all a matter of love , not fear. for perfect love casts out all fear .

the lord Jesus showed the way and the apostles followed him .
I don't desire this for anyone ..but where the lord takes us - there we must go knowing that for us .. to die (in CHRIST)is gain.

Andrew, brother of Peter, was crucified in Edessa.

Bartholomew was beaten and then crucified in India.

James the Great, older brother of John, was beheaded in 44 A.D. in Judea.

James the Less was beaten, stoned, and then clubbed to death at age 94 in Jerusalem.

Jude, brother of James, was crucified in 72 A.D. in Edessa.

Luke was hanged on an olive tree in Greece.

Mark was dragged to death in Alexandria.

Matthew was killed with a weapon that had a blade and spike in 60 A.D. in Nadabah.

Matthias was stoned and then beheaded in Jerusalem.

Paul was beheaded with a sword in Rome.

Peter was crucified head down by request as unworthy to die the same as Christ, in Rome.

Philip was scourged, imprisoned, and then crucified in 54 A.D. in Heliopolis, Phrygia.

Simon was crucified in 74 A.D. in Britain.

Stephen was stoned to death in 34 A.D. in Jerusalem.

Thomas was thrust through with a spear in India.

 

[thesunisout]

Actually, I feel that America DOES kinda represent Israel in a spiritual way, but not in the sense that they are some how God's holy, chosen people, but more so in the sense of looking at physical appearance and dogma.

I agree somewhat. The problem with America is that the church has compromised with the secular culture so much that its taken over. The church is only now starting to wake up and realize what happened.

I very strongly disagree with this reasoning. Let's say you've got a room with 100 boxes of food in it and 10 people. The people are told to divide up the food however they want. At the end of the day you've got 8 people with a quarter of a box each, 1 person with three boxes, and the final person with 5 boxes.

You notice that the all the people have broken arms, legs, cuts, bruises, missing teeth, and torn clothes.

So, who did God bless in this situation?

I don't have any idea who, if any, God might have blessed in that situation. I don't know of any scripture to inform us about how God might deal with people fighting over food. There are scriptures though, like Daniel 4:17, that deal with how God is sovereign over nations, and raises them up to do His will. Babylon is an example of this. God said in His word that He rules over the Kingdom of men and gives it to whomever He wishes. So my question here, according to this scripture, is do you think the ruler of the most powerful nation on Earth gets that power through men or did God give it to him?

As with almost all teachings in the Bible, this one from Paul is definitely not an absolute. Consider this teaching from Peter:

ACTS 5:29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Peter and the other apostles were commanded to stop teaching about Jesus, and the command came from those who were in authority over them.

Obviously, some kind of context MUST be present when we talk about submitting ourselves to government. By all means, obey traffic signals and anit-littering laws. Obey laws about not stealing and obey laws which are obviously good for people in general.

But the teachings of Jesus outweigh even Paul. If we feel Paul is telling us to submit to government laws which go against what Jesus taught, then we need to forsake Paul and follow Jesus.

I do understand that there are stipulations for this, that we should obey God rather than men, which is why I also included this statement in my original post:

"The laws that we are not obliged to follow are those which contradict the commands God has given us to do. For instance, it isn't wrong to preach the gospel in a country that has made it illegal to do so"

Did you miss it?

I feel a bit disturbed by the connection you are making here. I don't think we must submit ourselves to governments which act in opposition to God, just because they claim authority over us, and I don't think that's what Paul was saying either.

I've read the Romans passage you are referring to and quite frankly it's confusing as to what he's even talking about. I get the feeling that some patriotic, over zealous monk probably "improved" the translation at some point throughout the ages.

The passaged talks about these "rulers" as though they are the direct ministers of God, commanding the people and punishing them, and "attending continually on this very thing". If they were really God's ministers they wouldn't even be in politics in the first place.

The whole passage is very confusing, spiritually. But, Paul does add a clause into the equation by saying that we should rending tribute, custom, fear, and honor to whom it is due. So, we get a caveat after all.

There IS some context to this submission. I won't submit myself to a government which isn't worthy, and I'll judge that worth based on their submission to God, or, as Paul puts it, their "attending continually as ministers of God"

The language seems very clear to me: there is no authority except that which is ordained by God, and rebelling against that authority is rebelling against God.I don't see what is confusing about that? I also don't see a clause there which says we get to decide which authorities to obey and which to disobey. It says all, not some, or the ones we judge to be worthy. The clause that we have is we do not have to obey commands or laws which contradict Gods word; that doesn't mean we can disregard the authority itself. Gods word says that is rebellion.

I am kind of getting the sense that you don't feel Paul is authoritative. I'm sorry in advance if this isn't the case, but I have to ask you: do you believe his epistles are inspired by the Holy Spirit? If not, how should we look at the epistles?

Are all leaders appointed, or are some appointed while others are allowed? How do we know which leaders are appointed and which are not?

We don't. I think, though, that we can infer that people do not come into positions of absolute power in this world by accident or the will of men.

Of course I can say that, unless you are suggesting every person who voted him in was acting in obedience to a leading from God to vote for him and that every person who did not vote for him were acting in disobedience.

I am suggesting God is sovereign, and He causes things to happen that demonstrate His glory. Take the example of the Pharoh, for instance. God raised him up and hardened his heart so that He could then bring the plagues upon Egypt. He was obviously a very evil man but God made him ruler over Egypt for His own purposes.

 

[thesunisout]

I think this makes for an interesting example. gospel4all is under the authority of his commanding officers, and yet, he is also in a position of authority over the general public.

When we talk about authority, what does it really mean? Does God establish every teacher in every school who has authority over children, to teach them that God does not really exist?

Maybe. I could see the possibility of God doing something like that to see what we will do about it; to see who will be faithful and who will just go along with doing whatever the authorities tell them to do.

Perhaps something similar happens when any corrupt government comes along; God wants to see who will remain faithful and who will not.

BTW, gospel4all, I think the only part of your post I did not agree with was the comments about you not wanting to attack Israel because you don't want to attack God's people.

Aside from the fact that Christians really shouldn't be wanting to attack anyone, I don't see that people who reject Jesus can be called "God's people". I think this is a fairly minor difference and something that we can easily overcome by focusing on areas where we agree, but I'm just throwing it out there anyway.

I can understand why you would say that, but scripture says something else, which is that the Jews are Gods people. I don't see anywhere in scripture that it says the Jews stopped being Gods people. In fact, Paul explains how they are still Gods people even in the midst of their unbelief:

Rom 11:17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree,

Rom 11:18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you.

Rom 11:19 Then you will say, "Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in."

Rom 11:20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.

Rom 11:21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you.

Rom 11:22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.

Rom 11:23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be
grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.

Rom 11:24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The
Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

The Holy Spirit speaking through Paul says that the Jews are the natural branches of the olive tree, and that we should not be arrogant towards them but rather fear, because we the wild branches can just as easily be broken off as they were. He also said that Israel had been partially hardened by God until the "fullness of the gentiles" which is when the Jews will be grafted back in to the Olive tree and all Israel will be saved. The fullness of the times of the gentiles has not happened yet, which is why Israel is still hardened in its unbelief. So they are still Gods people, even if they have rejected their Messiah, and He is keeping them in unbelief for His own purposes.

 

[candle glow]

I don't have any idea who, if any, God might have blessed in that situation. I don't know of any scripture to inform us about how God might deal with people fighting over food. There are scriptures though, like Daniel 4:17, that deal with how God is sovereign over nations, and raises them up to do His will. Babylon is an example of this. God said in His word that He rules over the Kingdom of men and gives it to whomever He wishes. So my question here, according to this scripture, is do you think the ruler of the most powerful nation on Earth gets that power through men or did God give it to him?

In the example, the food was limited, finite. In order for one country to get the most, they had to fight for it.

In a Christian setting, at the very least, each of the ten people should have had 10 boxes each. However, an examination of each perons' situation should have been made and the boxes of food distributed according to each person's need, and not based on who was able to wrestle the most food from others. That is the example we have from the Bible.

It's comparable to real life because the resources in the world are also finite. If one country has many times more resources that the rest of the world, then that needs to be questioned, especially when they are only able to do so because of their military power.

I do understand that there are stipulations for this, that we should obey God rather than men, which is why I also included this statement in my original post:

"The laws that we are not obliged to follow are those which contradict the commands God has given us to do. For instance, it isn't wrong to preach the gospel in a country that has made it illegal to do so"

Did you miss it?

No, I noticed that you mentioned it, though I felt you may be limiting that clause to "preaching the gospel" whereas I feel it can apply to many other situations, too.

I also don't see a clause there which says we get to decide which authorities to obey and which to disobey. It says all, not some, or the ones we judge to be worthy. The clause that we have is we do not have to obey commands or laws which contradict Gods word; that doesn't mean we can disregard the authority itself.

The clause is that our "dues" are owed to leaders who "attend continually as ministers of the lord". If a leader is teaching anything inconsistent with what Jesus taught us to do then I won't obey that leader (at least, not knowingly).

Take the example of the Pharoh, for instance. God raised him up and hardened his heart so that He could then bring the plagues upon Egypt. He was obviously a very evil man but God made him ruler over Egypt for His own purposes.

Right. God raised him up, but not because he wanted the people to obey pharoh. The same can easily apply to many evil leaders in the world today.

 

[candle glow]

can understand why you would say that, but scripture says something else, which is that the Jews are Gods people. I don't see anywhere in scripture that it says the Jews stopped being Gods people. In fact, Paul explains how they are still Gods people even in the midst of their unbelief:

Even in the example you've given, you dont see ANYTHING suggesting that the Jews lost their place as god's "chosen people"? It says they were broken off. It says that the gentiles were grafted in, BUT that the God has the power to graft the Jews back in again IF they do not continue in their unbelief.

In other words, they can only be a part of the tree if they accept Jesus, at which point there is nothing special about them because we are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

In John 8 Jesus plainly tells the Jews arguing with his that they are NOT the children of Abraham because they did not have the faith of Araham. John the baptist told the pharisees not to think they were somehow special because of their DNA heritage because God could raise up rocks to be the children of Abraham if he wanted to.

Paul said that all the promises made to Abraham were made to him and his seed, not seeds; singular. That seed is Jesus. In other words, all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in Jesus.

There are many, many other such teachings spread all throughout the NT, but I need to go now.

 

[allykelly07]

Jen, no problem and thank you for starting this dialogue. I feel you are right about what you say. Our government is definitely following the politically correct, anti-christian agenda of promoting many paths and many truths. This is of course, Satanic. Not too long ago, though, our government used to promote and defend Christian liberties, recognizing them as the founding principle our republic rests upon. There was a Supreme Court case in 1892 regarding an employment contract with a pastor from England (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States). This was the conclusion of the court

Daniel 6:12-16
12 And they went before the king, and spoke concerning the king’s decree: “Have you not signed a decree that every man who petitions any god or man within thirty days, except you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?”
The king answered and said, “The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not alter.” 13 So they answered and said before the king, “That Daniel, who is one of the captives[a] from Judah, does not show due regard for you, O king, or for the decree that you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.”
14 And the king, when he heard these words, was greatly displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him. 15 Then these men approached the king, and said to the king, “Know, O king, that it is the law of the Medes and Persians that no decree or statute which the king establishes may be changed.” 16 So the king gave the command, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions. But the king spoke, saying to Daniel, “Your God, whom you serve continually, He will deliver you.” Acts 4:15-20
15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16 “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.” 18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. 20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
1 Corinthians 2:6
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
Acts 4:25-27
25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: “‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together
against the Lord and against his Anointed One.
We must take scripture as a whole rather than only taking one scripture to fit what we think.

 

[thesunisout]

It's comparable to real life because the resources in the world are also finite. If one country has many times more resources that the rest of the world, then that needs to be questioned, especially when they are only able to do so because of their military power.

Okay, I understand what you're getting at as far as blessings from the Lord are concerned. In a Christian setting, God will bless those whose behavior is equitable. However, the level of nations is not a Christian setting, and God has made many declarations about His sovereignty over nations. What is your interpretation of Daniel 4:17 where it says that God rules over the kingdom of men and gives it to whomever He wants? How about Daniel 4:32:

Daniel 4:32 You will be driven away from people and will live with the wild animals; you will eat grass like cattle. Seven times will pass by for you until you acknowledge that the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes

The scripture seems to be speaking very clearly that nations don't have power in this world by accident, but that God gives it to them. So how could the United States be the most powerful nation in the world without Gods blessing, according to these scriptures?

The clause is that our "dues" are owed to leaders who "attend continually as ministers of the lord". If a leader is teaching anything inconsistent with what Jesus taught us to do then I won't obey that leader (at least, not knowingly).

That isn't what the scripture says. In Romans 13:6 it identifies the authorities as ministers of God, or Gods servants.

"For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing"

It doesn't say the authorities are ministers of God because they obey Christ, it says they are ministers of God because they are in authority. In Romans 13:7 it tells us to pay everything that is owed to them, whether taxes or respect or honor:

"Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

There is no clause there that says you only have to obey them only if they do nothing contrary to Gods word. It says they are Gods servants because they are in authority, not because they are obedient. As scripture says earlier, all authority is set up by God, and rebelling against it is rebelling against God.

Right. God raised him up, but not because he wanted the people to obey pharoh. The same can easily apply to many evil leaders in the world today.

The original question was, can you say that God didn't appoint Obama? You said you could. Are you changing your stance here?

Even in the example you've given, you dont see ANYTHING suggesting that the Jews lost their place as god's "chosen people"? It says they were broken off. It says that the gentiles were grafted in, BUT that the God has the power to graft the Jews back in again IF they do not continue in their unbelief.

In other words, they can only be a part of the tree if they accept Jesus, at which point there is nothing special about them because we are all brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus.

In John 8 Jesus plainly tells the Jews arguing with his that they are NOT the children of Abraham because they did not have the faith of Araham. John the baptist told the pharisees not to think they were somehow special because of their DNA heritage because God could raise up rocks to be the children of Abraham if he wanted to.

Paul said that all the promises made to Abraham were made to him and his seed, not seeds; singular. That seed is Jesus. In other words, all the promises to Abraham were fulfilled in Jesus.

There are many, many other such teachings spread all throughout the NT, but I need to go now.

You're ignoring the most crucial part of the scripture that I shared:

Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The
Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Scripture is saying here very plainly that Israel has been hardened until the fullness of the Gentiles, and that afterwards all Israel will be saved. So, they will not continue in unbelief, according to this prophecy. There are also many such prophecies in the Old Testament about Israel which say God will redeem them in the last times.

The scriptures you're talking about are valid, and Jews who believe they are children of Abraham when they do not recognize Jesus as Messiah are mistaken. They are grafted out because of their unbelief. However, Paul calls them natural branches and us wild branches, and as I just showed, they will be grafted in some day. Therefore, the Jews are still Gods chosen people. This doesn't mean they have some kind of a special status over us, because we are spiritual Israel. In that sense we are also Gods chosen people. However, the nation of Israel was created by God, and the Jews are His people. According to scripture, He hasn't abandoned them at all, but plans to save all of them in the last days.

 

[thesunisout]

Daniel 6:12-16
12 And they went before the king, and spoke concerning the king’s decree: “Have you not signed a decree that every man who petitions any god or man within thirty days, except you, O king, shall be cast into the den of lions?”
The king answered and said, “The thing is true, according to the law of the Medes and Persians, which does not alter.” 13 So they answered and said before the king, “That Daniel, who is one of the captives[a] from Judah, does not show due regard for you, O king, or for the decree that you have signed, but makes his petition three times a day.”
14 And the king, when he heard these words, was greatly displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he labored till the going down of the sun to deliver him. 15 Then these men approached the king, and said to the king, “Know, O king, that it is the law of the Medes and Persians that no decree or statute which the king establishes may be changed.” 16 So the king gave the command, and they brought Daniel and cast him into the den of lions. But the king spoke, saying to Daniel, “Your God, whom you serve continually, He will deliver you.” Acts 4:15-20
15 So they ordered them to withdraw from the Sanhedrin and then conferred together. 16 “What are we going to do with these men?” they asked. “Everybody living in Jerusalem knows they have done an outstanding miracle, and we cannot deny it. 17 But to stop this thing from spreading any further among the people, we must warn these men to speak no longer to anyone in this name.” 18 Then they called them in again and commanded them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John replied, “Judge for yourselves whether it is right in God’s sight to obey you rather than God. 20 For we cannot help speaking about what we have seen and heard.”
1 Corinthians 2:6
We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing.
Acts 4:25-27
25 You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David: “‘Why do the nations rage and the peoples plot in vain? 26 The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together
against the Lord and against his Anointed One.
We must take scripture as a whole rather than only taking one scripture to fit what we think.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The portion you quoted didn't have any scripture in it. What position do you think I am taking and what scripture did I post to justify it?

 

[candle glow]

The scripture seems to be speaking very clearly that nations don't have power in this world by accident, but that God gives it to them. So how could the United States be the most powerful nation in the world without Gods blessing, according to these scriptures?

In the example I gave, 10 people were given the authority to take what they wanted from the room. We could say that is like God setting up various governments.

However, what happens when those governments refuse to listen to God? How long do we say, "this government was given it's authority by God so we have no choice but to do what they tell us to".

At what point is it okay to rebel? Can you think of any examples where we should not obey autority, besides a situation where we are told not to preach about Jesus?

I can think of many.

"Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed."

I feel this is very similar to something Jesus said about taxes, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God".

After we've given everything to God which belongs to him, what is left for Caesar?

The original question was, can you say that God didn't appoint Obama? You said you could. Are you changing your stance here?

Well, not necessarily changing, so much as refining. I think it really doesn't matter whether God appoints the leaders or not. The real point is what those leaders are doing with their appointments and what God was trying to achieve by appointing people who obviously are not interested in obeying him.

I am very, very sure that God does NOT want his followers obeying leaders who teach against his values (with the possible exception of slavery though even then it's preferable to die than to disobey Jesus for the sake of another's authority).

If that's really what Paul was teaching, then I would withstand him to his face if he were here now (though I don't believe that's what Paul was teaching).

 

[candle glow]

Hi ally,

Thanks for posting those excellent examples of times when it's okay to disobey rules and authorities.

Although sunny already mentioned that it's okay when it's specifically about denying Jesus as opposed to denying governments, he seems to be limiting disobedience to governments to that one specific example. I think that is unwise.

 

[candle glow]

Therefore, the Jews are still Gods chosen people. This doesn't mean they have some kind of a special status over us, because we are spiritual Israel. In that sense we are also Gods chosen people. However, the nation of Israel was created by God, and the Jews are His people. According to scripture, He hasn't abandoned them at all, but plans to save all of them in the last days.

You say flesh Jews have no special status over us, but then you explain that they DO because they were "created by God" and that they are "His people" and that is why they are his "chosen people".

But we are all God's creations and we are all his people. This is especially true of those who choose to follow and obey Jesus, verses those who choose to reject Jesus.

I suspect the contradiction is coming more from a kind of religious tradition than a genuine understanding of this "new thing" God is doing where he looks at the heart and not the flesh.

The point is that God tried having a people set apart based on their DNA, and it just didn't work. Over and over again they showed that just having the correct DNA was not enough to cause people to be faithful.

So God tried something different through Jesus, and invited ANYONE to be a part of his family. There is no more outward appearance. That's the point of the branches. The "original branches" were broken off. They COULD be grafted in again, but that will only happen when they turn to Jesus, and at that point how will they be different from the rest of us who obey Jesus?

This issue of "breaking off branches" is very similar to the thick curtain in the Holy of Holies being supernaturally torn in two, signifying an end to the OT ways of God's chosen people and sacrificing in the temple. It is recorded that at that moment Jesus also said "it is finished".

There is also a prophecy in Daniel 9 which deals with this issue to. For more details on that you can read a study called "the seventy weeks" on this page

Anyway, using the title of "chosen people" for a group who have chosen to reject Jesus is a slap in the face for those of us who do follow Jesus.

 

[thesunisout]

In the example I gave, 10 people were given the authority to take what they wanted from the room. We could say that is like God setting up various governments.

However, what happens when those governments refuse to listen to God? How long do we say, "this government was given it's authority by God so we have no choice but to do what they tell us to".

At what point is it okay to rebel? Can you think of any examples where we should not obey autority, besides a situation where we are told not to preach about Jesus?

I can think of many.

If we look at the example of the Canaanites, God gave them 450 years to repent, and then He sent the Jews to destroy them. So nations are ultimately accountable to God, since He is the judge over the authorities that He sets up. He will deal with rebellious nations, and we not their judges.

As far as rebelling, I think you know very well how God views rebellion. I've said previously that we do not have to obey the commands of an authority which contradict the word of God. If an authority tells us to murder someone, we don't have to obey that command. This doesn't mean that once we receive a command from an authority that is contrary to the word of God, we are entitled to rebel against the authority. Where do you find that in the word of God?

My original question was though, how could the United States become the most powerful nation in the world without Gods blessing? According to both Daniel 4:17 and 4:32 (and many others), God is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes. Why do you think the United States is somehow an exception to this?

I feel this is very similar to something Jesus said about taxes, "give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God".

After we've given everything to God which belongs to him, what is left for Caesar?

Everything technically belongs to God, but Romans 13 says give what is owed or due to the authorities. Taxes to whom taxes, honor to whom honor, etc. This is what Jesus means by "belongs".

Well, not necessarily changing, so much as refining. I think it really doesn't matter whether God appoints the leaders or not. The real point is what those leaders are doing with their appointments and what God was trying to achieve by appointing people who obviously are not interested in obeying him.

We don't know what God is trying to achieve with the leaders He has appointed. We can't read the mind of God, which why He gave us His word so we would know what the do in every situation. What the word of God tells us is to obey the authorities God has set up; that includes Pharoh, and every other authority God put in place.

I am very, very sure that God does NOT want his followers obeying leaders who teach against his values (with the possible exception of slavery though even then it's preferable to die than to disobey Jesus for the sake of another's authority).

If that's really what Paul was teaching, then I would withstand him to his face if he were here now (though I don't believe that's what Paul was teaching).

You won't find any backing for your position in scripture. The only backing you will find is that its alright to disobey specific commands of an authority when they contradict the word of God. There is no clause that says you are entitled to rebel against an authority because they teach something contrary to the word of God. The word of God speaks clearly with one voice on this issue:

1 Peter 2:13-17

13Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, 14or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. 16Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. 17Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

You won't find a leader in history that hasn't taught something which is against Gods values. According to your logic, we could then rebel against any authority we choose. However, Romans says to obey them all; just or unjust. All means all.

This is what Peter says about slaves:

1 Peter 2:18

Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh

For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.

Paul makes the same point in Romans about the authorities:

Romans 13:5

Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Here Paul brings the matter of slavery to a fine point:

Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ

He says obey your master just as you would obey Christ. Are you getting the idea that Paul is telling us to submit to authority? You say you would withstand Paul, but we're not talking about what Paul thinks. The epistles are the inspired word of Almighty God. If you wanted to contend against this teaching, you would be contending against the Holy Spirit.

 

[thesunisout]

You say flesh Jews have no special status over us, but then you explain that they DO because they were "created by God" and that they are "His people" and that is why they are his "chosen people".

But we are all God's creations and we are all his people. This is especially true of those who choose to follow and obey Jesus, verses those who choose to reject Jesus.

I suspect the contradiction is coming more from a kind of religious tradition than a genuine understanding of this "new thing" God is doing where he looks at the heart and not the flesh.

The point is that God tried having a people set apart based on their DNA, and it just didn't work. Over and over again they showed that just having the correct DNA was not enough to cause people to be faithful.

So God tried something different through Jesus, and invited ANYONE to be a part of his family. There is no more outward appearance. That's the point of the branches. The "original branches" were broken off. They COULD be grafted in again, but that will only happen when they turn to Jesus, and at that point how will they be different from the rest of us who obey Jesus?

This issue of "breaking off branches" is very similar to the thick curtain in the Holy of Holies being supernaturally torn in two, signifying an end to the OT ways of God's chosen people and sacrificing in the temple. It is recorded that at that moment Jesus also said "it is finished".

There is also a prophecy in Daniel 9 which deals with this issue to. For more details on that you can read a study called "the seventy weeks" on this page

Anyway, using the title of "chosen people" for a group who have chosen to reject Jesus is a slap in the face for those of us who do follow Jesus.

Brother, why aren't you addressing the scripture that I am posting here? I've posted it twice, and this will be the third time. If it was just about DNA, I would agree with you; there would be no basis for saying the Jews are still Gods chosen people. It isn't about DNA though, it is about what the word of God says. Look at these verses very carefully:

Rom 11:25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers: a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.

Rom 11:26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, "The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob";

Rom 11:27 "and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins."

Again, scripture is saying here very plainly that Israel has been hardened until the fullness of the Gentiles, and that afterwards all Israel will be saved. So, they will not continue in unbelief, according to this prophecy. If they will not continue in unbelief, then that means they will be grafted back in at some point. That means they are still Gods chosen people. It is not a slap in the face to honor that. God says I bless everyone who blesses Israel, and I curse everyone who curses Israel.

If you disagree with this interpretation, give me your interpretation of these scriptures. We can speculate all day long, but if we want to know the truth we have to consult the word of God.

 

[thesunisout]

Hi ally,

Thanks for posting those excellent examples of times when it's okay to disobey rules and authorities.

Although sunny already mentioned that it's okay when it's specifically about denying Jesus as opposed to denying governments, he seems to be limiting disobedience to governments to that one specific example. I think that is unwise.

I am not limiting it that way. I said if someone commands you to do something contrary to the word of God, you can disobey that command. I then gave a specific example. There are many such examples.