God appoints government leaders?

[Athée]

Disclaimer: agnostic atheist interested in your perspective more that an argument.

So I was having lunchbwoth a pastor friend of mine and he brought along a youth leader (teenager) fromnhis church who was doing a job shadow.

We were talking about Christianity as we usually do and I brought up Hitler. I was about to say that he is an example of someone who people like to call a Christian but that the truth is mich less clear and that evem of he was (and I am not saying he was) his actions don't have anything to do with the truth or falsehood of Christianity.

Anyway the kid jumps in to say that Hitler wasn't Christian and moreover look at the atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin etc.

On the drive home I was thinking about Romans 13:1 that talks about God appointing the rulers of earthly governments and I wondered how Christians reconcile that doctrine with the atrocities committed by some of the rulers throughout history.

Thoughts?

 

[SeventyOne]

Well, we see He appointed David for the people to follow. He appointed Pharaoh for Moses to oppose, and He appointed Pilate to have authority over Him during His crucifixion.

Just because God appoints someone doesn't mean they are to be revered and followed. Sometimes they are to be fought against.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Disclaimer: agnostic atheist interested in your perspective more that an argument.

So I was having lunchbwoth a pastor friend of mine and he brought along a youth leader (teenager) fromnhis church who was doing a job shadow.

We were talking about Christianity as we usually do and I brought up Hitler. I was about to say that he is an example of someone who people like to call a Christian but that the truth is mich less clear and that even of he was (and I am not saying he was) his actions don't have anything to do with the truth or falsehood of Christianity.

Anyway the kid jumps in to say that Hitler wasn't Christian and moreover look at the atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin etc.

On the drive home I was thinking about Romans 13:1 that talks about God appointing the rulers of earthly governments and I wondered how Christians reconcile that doctrine with the atrocities committed by some of the rulers throughout history.

Thoughts?

I separate christianity into two categories. The body of believers and christian politics. I think some christians and nonchristians combine the two. So one would say because Stalin did X he isnt a christian. But Bob did Y so that makes him a christian. I think the best way to reconcile these things is not to define people by their actions (we cant be saved by deeds but your deeds can define whether you are saved, type of thing) but by their relationship to christ. Which is a growing relationship not an overnight one.

If Stalin and Hitler are christian, if I were christian Id see them as brothers in christ. With whom, Id pray For. Thats reconciling ones horrible religous history of the faith one follows. If jesus forgives, then so can a christian.

If the christian can reconcile his views with his history of belief, there would be no separation between body and politics. The question would be irrelevant if one's relationship with christ focused on the growth of others and not just oneself.

Outside of that, I see it as politics. Something wed have to ask Hitler and Stalin personally.

 

[Saucy]

Yeah the thing to remember is God exists outside of our understand of the world. We see death as the end and this horrible thing, but if God DOES exist, death isn't the end. It's not bad. It's a transition to that better place. People committing evil doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It doesn't mean God isn't watching or paying attention.

WW2 had to happen. A lot of good resulted out of that. The bible actually made a prophecy thousands of years ago, even before Jerusalem was destroyed, that it would be rebuilt. In AD 70, the temple was destroyed and it remained that way for 2,000 years until the 1940s. Out of the ashes of Nazi Germany and millions of dead Jews, Israel became a nation again.

It also allowed for the world powers to get together and become allied forces. The world has actually changed for the better as a result of what Hitler did. And that's what God does. He takes what people do in evil and makes good come from it.

 

[Rion]

Anyway the kid jumps in to say that Hitler wasn't Christian and moreover look at the atrocities committed by Mao and Stalin etc.

To be fair, they killed a lot more people than Hitler.

On the drive home I was thinking about Romans 13:1 that talks about God appointing the rulers of earthly governments and I wondered how Christians reconcile that doctrine with the atrocities committed by some of the rulers throughout history.

Thoughts?

Just because God appoints someone, it doesn't mean that He signs off on their behavior or actions. Often times, a ruler will be appointed for judgement. Either for that nation, or one of their neighbors.

 

[Athée]

Well, we see He appointed David for the people to follow. He appointed Pharaoh for Moses to oppose, and He appointed Pilate to have authority over Him during His crucifixion.

Just because God appoints someone doesn't mean they are to be revered and followed. Sometimes they are to be fought against.

That's well put.

That said, I guess it does also mean that God appointed those people, knowing what they were going to do, because ultimately it increases our perception of his glory or something similar.
Does the justification of giving the faithful someone to fight against, make it ok that God appointed the dictators of the world?

 

[Saucy]

I don't think it meant they are to be fought against. In the same Romans 13:1-2 it says to submit to these leaders and not rebel against them, for then we are rebelling against what instituted.

 

[SeventyOne]

That's well put.

That said, I guess it does also mean that God appointed those people, knowing what they were going to do, because ultimately it increases our perception of his glory or something similar.
Does the justification of giving the faithful someone to fight against, make it ok that God appointed the dictators of the world?

There's a bigger picture here. This is the God who once told us this...

Isaiah 46:8-11 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.​

He has an end goal with this age, and during which we will spend our little portion of time within its narrative. All the evil that is done by them or others (or ourselves) will be accounted for in due time. Judgment is coming for us all. Some of us will enter the next age where no such despot will rule, and some of us will not.

 

[Halbhh]

People saying our President was chosen by God may not have paid attention to the fact that someday the world will spiral down into chaos and the End Times, and a president could be chosen in order to set up the conditions to make that happen....

For instance, by undoing accords and creating a combative international atmosphere, for instance, or provoking evil leaders in other nations and creating a slow slide to war.

For the "war and rumors of war" to happen the mostly peace in most nations much of the time -- more peace than war -- that situation has to end, and some leaders will have to do stuff to end it.

It's good not to be overly satisfied about having a president you like, but instead fear God, and seek to do the things Christ said to do, so that you might endure and make it.

 

[Rion]

I don't think it meant they are to be fought against. In the same Romans 13:1-2 it says to submit to these leaders and not rebel against them, for then we are rebelling against what instituted.

I think it'd depend on what you mean by fought against. Hiding people who are unjustly persecuted is fine, setting up a bomb to kill your evil overlord, not so much. At the same time, if you joined another country and they went to war with the tyrant, I think that'd be "fine."

I'm basing this on the fact that I don't recall hearing about Roman soldiers who were converted becoming utter pacifists.

 

[Athée]

I separate christianity into two categories. The body of believers and christian politics. I think some christians and nonchristians combine the two. So one would say because Stalin did X he isnt a christian. But Bob did Y so that makes him a christian. I think the best way to reconcile these things is not to define people by their actions (we cant be saved by deeds but your deeds can define whether you are saved, type of thing) but by their relationship to christ. Which is a growing relationship not an overnight one.

If Stalin and Hitler are christian, if I were christian Id see them as brothers in christ. With whom, Id pray For. Thats reconciling ones horrible religous history of the faith one follows. If jesus forgives, then so can a christian.

If the christian can reconcile his views with his history of belief, there would be no separation between body and politics. The question would be irrelevant if one's relationship with christ focused on the growth of others and not just oneself.

Outside of that, I see it as politics. Something wed have to ask Hitler and Stalin personally.

That's fair, actions of an I individual don't necessarily bear on the truth or falsness of the worldview they claim to be inspired by.
I wonder how you feel, knowing that God appointed these leaders when he knew ahead of time what horrible things they were going to do.

 

[Athée]

There's a bigger picture here. This is the God who once told us this...

Isaiah 46:8-11 “Remember this and stand firm, recall it to mind, you transgressors, remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it.​

He has an end goal with this age, and during which we will spend our little portion of time within its narrative. All the evil that is done by them or others (or ourselves) will be accounted for in due time. Judgment is coming for us all. Some of us will enter the next age where no such despot will rule, and some of us will not.

So it sounds like you are saying, yes God appointed the Hitler's and Stalin's of the world, knowing what they were going to do, but that this is ok because God has a plan and you trust that it is a good and perfect plan.
Is that correct?

 

[Athée]

People saying our President was chosen by God may not have paid attention to the fact that someday the world will spiral down into chaos and the End Times, and a president could be chosen in order to set up the conditions to make that happen....

For instance, by undoing accords and creating a combative international atmosphere, for instance, or provoking evil leaders in other nations and creating a slow slide to war.

For the "war and rumors of war" to happen the mostly peace in most nations much of the time -- more peace than war -- that situation has to end, and some leaders will have to do stuff to end it.

It's good not to be overly satisfied about having a president you like, but instead fear God, and seek to do the things Christ said to do, so that you might endure and make it.

In other words God appoints the Hitler's and the Stalin's specifically to do evil so that God can accomplish his ultimate plan.
Is that how you see it?

 

[SeventyOne]

So it sounds like you are saying, yes God appointed the Hitler's and Stalin's of the world, knowing what they were going to do, but that this is ok because God has a plan and you trust that it is a good and perfect plan.
Is that correct?

I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is God does whatever He wants and we seek to uphold righteousness, help the oppressed and resist the proud.

What exactly are the options here? Either God sees to it who is put into power, or god of this world does. Occasionally, God gives us leaders we'd rather not have, but on the flip side, if the devil were in charge of such things, I highly doubt we'd be having this discussion because there wouldn't have been enough good leaders to make the really bad ones stand out.

 

[Athée]

I didn't say that at all. What I'm saying is God does whatever He wants and we seek to uphold righteousness, help the oppressed and resist the proud.

What exactly are the options here? Either God sees to it who is put into power, or god of this world does. Occasionally, God gives us leaders we'd rather not have, but on the flip side, if the devil were in charge of such things, I highly doubt we'd be having this discussion because there wouldn't have been enough good leaders to make the really bad ones stand out.

When you say God sometimes gives us leaders we would rather not have (Hitler et al.) and that we should oppose the proud you seem to be agreeing that God appoints these horrific leaders. I assume you think God is both good and justified in doing this. Correct?

 

[Hawkins]

Romans 13:1 is said in terms of God's absolute sovereignty. It means that Hitler won't exist if God doesn't allow him to exist. Other than this, a government under most circumstance exists in accordance to what kind of people are behind that government. True tyranny exists only for a rather short period of time. In other times, the quality/culture/custom of the peoples will define what kind of governments they will have. Overthrowing a government in this situation simply means blood shed but nothing improves. Bloodshed means more humans will die before they should (or before they live long enough for the gospel to reach them).

 

[paul1149]

I was thinking about Romans 13:1 that talks about God appointing the rulers of earthly governments and I wondered how Christians reconcile that doctrine with the atrocities committed by some of the rulers throughout history.

Remember that Hebrews 11 lists some people who are heroes of faith because they resisted their authorities. And some think that Paul is the author of Hebrews, though that isn't necessary to validate my point.

This passage teaches that we are to be in submission to legitimate authority. It does not mean we are to do evil because someone in authority says to. It does not mean we cannot rebel if the situation gets bad enough. A millennia-long body of Christian thought called Just War Theory specifies the legitimate criteria for just such a thing.

The word most used in this passage for authority, exousia, first refers to the actual quality of authority, and then by derivation to the particular ones who wield that authority. So you could understand it to mean that we are to be in principle subject to God's legitimate authority structure that He has placed on the Earth (primarily the nation-state), but we are free to respond to any particular leader as godliness would dictate, bearing in mind the "full counsel of God".

All this may beg the question, what does patriotism look like when an evil government has ascended? Corrie ten Boom's family resisted the Nazi occupation to hide Jews from the holocaust, and they and others like them are rightly revered for it.

 

[Athée]

Romans 13:1 is said in terms of God's absolute sovereignty. It means that Hitler won't exist if God doesn't allow him to exist. Other than this, a government under most circumstance exists in accordance to what kind of people are behind that government. True tyranny exists only for a rather short period of time. In other times, the quality/culture/custom of the peoples will define what kind of governments they will have. Overthrowing a government in this situation simply means blood shed but nothing improves. Bloodshed means more humans will die before they should (or before they live long enough for the gospel to reach them).

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that when the text specifically says that it is talking about earthly rulers being appointed by God, that it actually means God didn't appoint those people but rather tbier election was a confluence of human factors and God wasn't involved?

 

[Hawkins]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that when the text specifically says that it is talking about earthly rulers being appointed by God, that it actually means God didn't appoint those people but rather tbier election was a confluence of human factors and God wasn't involved?

No. It has nothing to do with election. It means that under most circumstance, say, you have a group of greedy people, then you can't expect to have a good government. It's the quality of people which actually defines the quality of the governments. This can be the way how "God assigns a government".

To put it another way, if people in a country are all greedy and with no religion, why do they expect God to give them a good government at all? It means that why God has to give them a supernaturally good government from a group of bad people?

Human societies basically work this way. Citizens' quality will define the quality of government officials. Quality of the government officials will define the quality of a government. You can't expect a saint coming from a group of bandits to be their leader.

 

[Athée]

Remember that Hebrews 11 lists some people who are heroes of faith because they resisted their authorities. And some think that Paul is the author of Hebrews, though that isn't necessary to validate my point.

This passage teaches that we are to be in submission to legitimate authority. It does not mean we are to do evil because someone in authority says to. It does not mean we cannot rebel if the situation gets bad enough. A millennia-long body of Christian thought called Just War Theory specifies the legitimate criteria for just such a thing.

The word most used in this passage for authority, exousia, first refers to the actual quality of authority, and then by derivation to the particular ones who wield that authority. So you could understand it to mean that we are to be in principle subject to God's legitimate authority structure that He has placed on the Earth (primarily the nation-state), but we are free to respond to any particular leader as godliness would dictate, bearing in mind the "full counsel of God".

All this may beg the question, what does patriotism look like when an evil government has ascended? Corrie ten Boom's family resisted the Nazi occupation to hide Jews from the holocaust, and they and others like them are rightly revered for it.

That is how I read the passage as well but it still leaves me wondering. It seems that God appoints the Hitler's and the Stalin's specifically to further his grand plan ( which may include us resisting those leaders insofar as they are unjust). How do you reconcile that with the idea of a good God?