eclipsoul
Lover
12volt_man, I truly do want to understand your position fully, and am
frustrated that my analogies weren't able to communicate to you my position.
I am confident that once we both understand one another, each of us will
learn something new. I am not being obtuse intentionally, and I know you
aren't either.
Then, at last (perhaps), we've come to an agreement on where we differ.
I see the context of Romans 13 as a teaching against rebellion.
You see the context of Romans 13 as a teaching on proper governance.
My understanding of the context of Romans 13 stems from knowing that
Christians were being killed by the government. It is natural to want to rebel
against the authorities when they crucify you. Yet in the spirit of Jesus'
nonviolence, Paul teaches us not to rebel.
Is Romans 13 a teaching on proper governance, or is it a teaching against
rebellion - a teaching which refuses to let Christians use violence, even when
it is against a government which wants to destroy them?
It is profitable, when dwelling upon the context of Romans 13, to ponder
Peter's teachings:
With a sincere and loving heart, I ask all of you to consider following Christ,
and to bear the cross of unjust suffering as he did. I ask you to consider
loving your enemies. I ask you to consider becoming a slave to all. And
finally, I ask you to consider Jesus' words, and to ponder their meaning in your
life as I ponder them in my own...
"Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?"
I pray that our answer is not this:
God bless.
frustrated that my analogies weren't able to communicate to you my position.
I am confident that once we both understand one another, each of us will
learn something new. I am not being obtuse intentionally, and I know you
aren't either.
12volt_man said:I already see the flaw in your thinking: you do not understand the difference in the nature and role of government and the church and you seem not to be overly concerned with following the context of the passage.
Then, at last (perhaps), we've come to an agreement on where we differ.
I see the context of Romans 13 as a teaching against rebellion.
You see the context of Romans 13 as a teaching on proper governance.
My understanding of the context of Romans 13 stems from knowing that
Christians were being killed by the government. It is natural to want to rebel
against the authorities when they crucify you. Yet in the spirit of Jesus'
nonviolence, Paul teaches us not to rebel.
Is Romans 13 a teaching on proper governance, or is it a teaching against
rebellion - a teaching which refuses to let Christians use violence, even when
it is against a government which wants to destroy them?
It is profitable, when dwelling upon the context of Romans 13, to ponder
Peter's teachings:
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... To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps.
With a sincere and loving heart, I ask all of you to consider following Christ,
and to bear the cross of unjust suffering as he did. I ask you to consider
loving your enemies. I ask you to consider becoming a slave to all. And
finally, I ask you to consider Jesus' words, and to ponder their meaning in your
life as I ponder them in my own...
"Why do you call me, Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?"
I pray that our answer is not this:
Christ's commands to His followers and Paul's teaching concerning the nature and role of government are two different teachings concerning two different things.
God bless.
Upvote
0