God appoints government leaders?

[Almost there]

And nothing in your experience suggests that he is not the kind of being who would pass judgement on the men, women and children under these dictators. Those atrocities seem entirely and keeping with the character of this being you know?

Yes, but not in the way you think. Watch the movie "The Five People You meet in Heaven" some time. It addresses this beautifully. It's an incredible story and...well, I don't want to give out any spoilers.

 

[Athée]

Yes, but not in the way you think. Watch the movie "The Five People You meet in Heaven" some time. It addresses this beautifully. It's an incredible story and...well, I don't want to give out any spoilers.

Ok, well it seems like we have reached the end of the road on the topic of the OP. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the appointment of leaders

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for your thoughts. So what role for you think God plays in the rise to power of certain individuals?

Outside of history happening within the sphere of divine providence? I don't think much. I don't ascribe to God the minutia of worldly events and human activity; as rational creatures and moral agents human activity is, in fact, human activity and we bear the moral responsibility and culpability of our own actions--people rise to power through human activity, kings are made by inheritance, presidents, prime ministers, governors, etc are elected, some are appointed--but that's all entirely a human affair. Hitler's rise to power came about through the confluence of democratic processes in the Wiemar Republic, populism, demagoguery, the unscrupulous manipulation of that system, and the elimination of his political opponents. Hitler did not rise to power because God desired it, or because God caused it to be; but because of the machinations of human agency and activity--the same as anyone else, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Sketcher]

That's fair but seems incomplete. When Paul writes (presumably inspired by the Holy Spirit?) that God appoints the governing authorities, what are the possible interpretations of that in your view?

Well, let's take a look at verses 1 & 2:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

The authority is a "what" rather than a "who." I take this to be in a general sense, rather than claiming divine will for a specific system of government. And by general, I mean very general, in that God has reserved positions of power for those who sit in them to exercise justice and protect the rights of others. And that whatever system he prefers we use would be the system that does that or at least allows for the most of it to happen. People could take this to mean divine will for whatever system they advocate as an alternative interpretation, but the problem with that is that there have been multiple different systems at different times and places in the world, but all true authority must come from God according to verse 1. If the divine will is for your favorite system, then it is either just like the Roman Empire in its structures and offices, or you have to Biblically answer why Paul was wrong to say what he said about the Roman authorities. If it is just like the Roman system, then you have to answer why the church, in keeping with Biblical teaching, melted away the Roman system of patronage, brought more dignity to women, and generally taught a completely different system of values than the Roman one. The emperor's position at the top was just part of the picture of the long-revered social order that Rome had which was quite different from ours today. Not only that, we have discovered superior systems of government and economics in the last 2000 years to those that Rome had, and if we're around for another 2000, we may discover better ones still. If God's will were for a system that is inferior at protecting the people's rights and allowing for their prosperity, then you have to answer why. Why would God want more people to be falsely punished and even brutalized, as well as poorer, sicker, and hungrier all for the sake of a system of rule and power? Furthermore, since the New Testament doesn't outline a system of government, you would have very little to go on for this justification.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's fair but doesn't really address the criticism I am making. To stubbornly extend a bad analogy... If before I give my son that throwing knife I tell him he is only allowed to use it to cut apples (knowing ahead of time that he is absolutely going to throw it at his sister), I don't see that I am absolved of responsibility.

I just don't accept the criticism you are applying with your analogy, basically for the reason that it's so 1 dimensional compared to what God is 'doing' in the political and social set up of kings and kingdoms. So, forgive me if I don't think the analogy really fits since it ignores too much. In saying this, I still think you're a very intelligent guy.

 

[Hawkins]

That's all fine but what I am asking is more about the selection process than about the pool of candidates. Do you believe as the text in Romans 13 seems to say that these leaders are appointed by God or do you believe that God stays out of it and let's humans sort it out?

I show you the big picture, that's how it works by rule. God on the other hand, can allow this rule operates by itself, or He can choose to intervene when He sees fit. Even when He intervenes, it won't usually go far away from the rule left and right. That's the way how He "chooses" a leader.

 

[Athée]

Outside of history happening within the sphere of divine providence? I don't think much. I don't ascribe to God the minutia of worldly events and human activity; as rational creatures and moral agents human activity is, in fact, human activity and we bear the moral responsibility and culpability of our own actions--people rise to power through human activity, kings are made by inheritance, presidents, prime ministers, governors, etc are elected, some are appointed--but that's all entirely a human affair. Hitler's rise to power came about through the confluence of democratic processes in the Wiemar Republic, populism, demagoguery, the unscrupulous manipulation of that system, and the elimination of his political opponents. Hitler did not rise to power because God desired it, or because God caused it to be; but because of the machinations of human agency and activity--the same as anyone else, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

-CryptoLutheran

That's really interesting. Do you also believe in prophecy? Do you believe that God has ever appointed a specific ruler for a purpose? If so how do you tell the difference between an appointed specific ruler and one who is not?

 

[Athée]

Well, let's take a look at verses 1 & 2:

"Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."

The authority is a "what" rather than a "who." I take this to be in a general sense, rather than claiming divine will for a specific system of government. And by general, I mean very general, in that God has reserved positions of power for those who sit in them to exercise justice and protect the rights of others. And that whatever system he prefers we use would be the system that does that or at least allows for the most of it to happen. People could take this to mean divine will for whatever system they advocate as an alternative interpretation, but the problem with that is that there have been multiple different systems at different times and places in the world, but all true authority must come from God according to verse 1. If the divine will is for your favorite system, then it is either just like the Roman Empire in its structures and offices, or you have to Biblically answer why Paul was wrong to say what he said about the Roman authorities. If it is just like the Roman system, then you have to answer why the church, in keeping with Biblical teaching, melted away the Roman system of patronage, brought more dignity to women, and generally taught a completely different system of values than the Roman one. The emperor's position at the top was just part of the picture of the long-revered social order that Rome had which was quite different from ours today. Not only that, we have discovered superior systems of government and economics in the last 2000 years to those that Rome had, and if we're around for another 2000, we may discover better ones still. If God's will were for a system that is inferior at protecting the people's rights and allowing for their prosperity, then you have to answer why. Why would God want more people to be falsely punished and even brutalized, as well as poorer, sicker, and hungrier all for the sake of a system of rule and power? Furthermore, since the New Testament doesn't outline a system of government, you would have very little to go on for this justification.

Do you think God has ever appointed a who rather than a what?

 

[Athée]

I just don't accept the criticism you are applying with your analogy, basically for the reason that it's so 1 dimensional compared to what God is 'doing' in the political and social set up of kings and kingdoms. So, forgive me if I don't think the analogy really fits since it ignores too much. In saying this, I still think you're a very intelligent guy.

Intelligence isn't everything I'm afraid

So the basic point of my analogy is that to the extent that God set the system in place, had sovereign control of who ends up as the leader, he is responsible for the atrocities commited.
You obviously disagree but what specifically are you rejecting here?

 

[Athée]

I show you the big picture, that's how it works by rule. God on the other hand, can allow this rule operates by itself, or He can choose to intervene when He sees fit. Even when He intervenes, it won't usually go far away from the rule left and right. That's the way how He "chooses" a leader.

It sounds like you are saying that sometimes he chooses and sometimes he doesn't, how do you tell the difference between the two?

 

[JoeP222w]

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?

God is holy, just and righteous. God is also grace, mercy and love. These are certainly not His only attributes, but key to this understanding.

Yes, God appoint rulers and authorities. Even when those rulers and authorities are completely evil. God will display His holiness, justice and righteousness by punishing evil and unrepentant mankind. God will also display His grace, mercy and love by granting salvation to undeserving lawbreakers. God also has an eternal decree and God uses secondary means to display His glory.

Your vote is missing a category. I would suggest there should be a category that says: "God is sovereign, and by His grace I trust in Him and His sovereign decree. And I recognize I have no right to judge His actions or work in His creation."

 

[Athée]

God is holy, just and righteous. God is also grace, mercy and love. These are certainly not His only attributes, but key to this understanding.

Yes, God appoint rulers and authorities. Even when those rulers and authorities are completely evil. God will display His holiness, justice and righteousness by punishing evil and unrepentant mankind. God will also display His grace, mercy and love by granting salvation to undeserving lawbreakers. God also has an eternal decree and God uses secondary means to display His glory.

Your vote is missing a category. I would suggest there should be a category that says: "God is sovereign, and by His grace I trust in Him and His sovereign decree. And I recognize I have no right to judge His actions or work in His creation."

If you can't judge him, how have you judged him to be good? How did you determine that the things done to the men, women, children and infants of Nazi Germany are good and moral?

 

[JoeP222w]

If you can't judge him, how have you judged him to be good?

God is not good because I judge Him to be good. He is good because it is the truth. His goodness and truth is not founded or dependent on me.

How did you determine that the things done to the men, women, children and infants of Nazi Germany are good and moral?

All things are examined in the light of God's word from the Bible. He is the absolute standard.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

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.

What's to reconcile ? Just as you read in Scripture, so it is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Intelligence isn't everything I'm afraid

So the basic point of my analogy is that to the extent that God set the system in place, had sovereign control of who ends up as the leader, he is responsible for the atrocities commited.
You obviously disagree but what specifically are you rejecting here?

Well, I think you need to clarify just what 'being responsible' is and by which exact ethical system we are to morally evaluate God? From what you've said in this thread so far, none of this is clear whatsoever, Athée; and you don't get to make the charge against God without first establishing which moral grounds are to be assumed as axiomatic in the overall evaluation.

Furthermore, you already imply that there may be some level of limitation as to how God may be responsible for various historical manifestations of human government, for both good and evil. So, you also need to tell us how we are to make a justified evaluation in discerning levels of responsibility BEFORE we conclude that God has an obvious moral fault in human politics.

In saying all of this, I'm trying to help you see that if we go "there," you will be opening up a whole can of worms dealing with Axiological contingencies and contexts that have to be accounted for by both of us--not just me. And if these contingencies can't be accounted for by you or by me in toto, then neither of us will be able to ask anyone else to simply rest upon some finality that trumps the other side's moral position. Do you get what I'm saying? If we're going to play with the God concept, evaluate it, and judge it, then we have to do it lock, stock, and barrel, not in piecemeal fashion made up of bits from our favorite democratic stock of social ideals. You need to realize that what is sauce for the Christian Goose is also sauce for the Gander of Democratic/Enlightened Moral Ideals.

 

[ViaCrucis]

That's really interesting. Do you also believe in prophecy? Do you believe that God has ever appointed a specific ruler for a purpose? If so how do you tell the difference between an appointed specific ruler and one who is not?

I believe in prophecy, yes; but I don't view prophecy as fortune-telling. Prophecy isn't fore-telling, it is forth-telling. The chief role of the ancient prophets wasn't to predict the future, but to proclaim God's word--in the proclaiming of that word there was both warning of judgment and hope of promise. Insofar as these things were involved, certain future events are warned of/promised; not always absolutely, but sometimes conditionally.

And, yes, I believe God has at times, in the past, appointed specific rulers for a specific purpose--examples of these exist in the biblical narratives; the most well known is that of David. The way I tell the difference between an appointed leader and one that isn't is that those who were specially appointed are clearly marked as such by God--the biblical texts specifically say that God specifically told Samuel to anoint David, the son of Jesse. But I also think we're dealing with a very special case already when talking about Israel because Israel was a special, covenant nation--those unique factors simply do not apply outside of historic Israel as the nation of the covenant; they do not apply to any other nation, government, or earthly power. In fact we read in the biblical narrative that when God established Israel as His nation He was to be their King, and God only allowed human kings because the people pleaded for God to give them a king like the other nations did--which led to the appointment of Saul as the first king of Israel. Israel wasn't intended to have an earthly king, Israel was to be a special nation whose king was God.

From the Christian perspective the allowance of Israel to have kings does have purpose within the divine drama though, as the anointing of David bears ultimately the messianic hope which Christians see as fulfilled in Jesus, who we confess and believe in as Lord and King Messiah. In that sense the choosing of David as king ultimately serves to give us Jesus, and thus the truth: God is King is made manifest--that is, after all, the subject of Jesus' ministry, "The kingdom of God is near, repent and believe the good news." By "kingdom of God" is meant the reign of God as King, and the reign of God as King is exercised and manifest in and through the person, life, and work of Jesus Christ, which is why for Christians our allegiance is to Christ who is our King. It is why we say Iesous Christos Kurios (Jesus Christ is Lord) not Kaiser Kurios (Caesar is lord); St. Paul saying, "There are many so-called gods and many so-called lords--but for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist." (1 Corinthians 8:6). The Christian can never confess the lordship of any other, nor acknowledge any other king as being truly king. As we confess Jesus Christ, King of kings and Lord of lords, whose kingdom is everlasting.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Athée]

God is not good because I judge Him to be good. He is good because it is the truth. His goodness and truth is not founded or dependent on me.



All things are examined in the light of God's word from the Bible. He is the absolute standard.

How did you determine that it is the truth that God is good is what I was asking.

 

[Athée]

God is not good because I judge Him to be good. He is good because it is the truth. His goodness and truth is not founded or dependent on me.



All things are examined in the light of God's word from the Bible. He is the absolute standard.

I guess this would also mean that of there were even one error in the bible you you acknowledge that it is not the truth and therefore couldn't have been from.god?

 

[Athée]

What's to reconcile ? Just as you read in Scripture, so it is.

So God chose the Hitler's and the Stalin's knowing ahead of time what they would do and that is good?

 

[Athée]

Well, I think you need to clarify just what 'being responsible' is and by which exact ethical system we are to morally evaluate God? From what you've said in this thread so far, none of this is clear whatsoever, Athée; and you don't get to make the charge against God without first establishing which moral grounds are to be assumed as axiomatic in the overall evaluation.

Furthermore, you already imply that there may be some level of limitation as to how God may be responsible for various historical manifestations of human government, for both good and evil. So, you also need to tell us how we are to make a justified evaluation in discerning levels of responsibility BEFORE we conclude that God has an obvious moral fault in human politics.

In saying all of this, I'm trying to help you see that if we go "there," you will be opening up a whole can of worms dealing with Axiological contingencies and contexts that have to be accounted for by both of us--not just me. And if these contingencies can't be accounted for by you or by me in toto, then neither of us will be able to ask anyone else to simply rest upon some finality that trumps the other side's moral position. Do you get what I'm saying? If we're going to play with the God concept, evaluate it, and judge it, then we have to do it lock, stock, and barrel, not in piecemeal fashion made up of bits from our favorite democratic stock of social ideals. You need to realize that what is sauce for the Christian Goose is also sauce for the Gander of Democratic/Enlightened Moral Ideals.

Attempting a laymen version of that you seem to be saying that as long as there is one logically possible, morally sufficient reason for God to allow these things, that we can't conclude that he was wrong to do so. While simultaneously suggesting that we do this on both sides, so then as long as there is one morally insufficient account of why God might have allowed this, we can't conclude that he was in fact morally right to do so.