same sex marriage and paul's letter to romans

[waitasec]

this thread is only for those who believe the bible is just as relevant today as it was then, that it's infallible, and who are defiant towards obama's stance on gay marriage.

when paul wrote the letter to romans, nero was in charge... a pretty shady character in history...yet he says this in the 13th chapter

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.


so isn't there a disconnect here? why are you rebelling against an authority god established? by challenging obama's position, you are in essence challenging god.


what say you?

 

[Me Myself]

Entertaining

 

[idav]

That verse is a pretty slippery slope. If a person rebels against the government and succeeds in becoming the government then it means god ordained the rebellion. Nobody can tell what god has ordained except to hope god is on their side this time.

Well anyhow I guess I'm not one of those who believes the bible is infallible.

 

[waitasec]

That verse is a pretty slippery slope. If a person rebels against the government and succeeds in becoming the government then it means god ordained the rebellion. Nobody can tell what god has ordained except to hope god is on their side this time.

Well anyhow I guess I'm not one of those who believes the bible is infallible.

apparently, god is on what ever side that wins...

 

[Ragnarson98]

apparently, god is on what ever side that wins...

Even for the losing side, I'm sure they think God caused them to lose for some perverted reason, that turns out in their favour.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It's merely half clever: although I am in agreement with it, Obama's stance on same-sex marriage is not an expression of state authority.

 

[waitasec]

Even for the losing side, I'm sure they think God caused them to lose for some perverted reason, that turns out in their favour.

even if they thought god caused them to win is perverted...

 

[waitasec]

It's merely half clever: although I am in agreement with it, Obama's stance on same-sex marriage is not an expression of state authority.

but he is our president who was "ordained" by god simply for the fact that he is president...and if the president says same sex couples should have the same rights then why challenge it?



This could definitely get them riled up ... hopefully," said Caryl Scales, a member of Hampton Road Baptist Church in DeSoto, Texas. "I'm not happy with it. I believe scripture. God's word says gay marriage is wrong."
National religious leaders with a weightier voice also came down against Obama.


Cardinal Timothy Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, called Obama's remarks "deeply saddening.

Christians rejoice, frown at Obama gay marriage stance - politics - msnbc.com

if he believes in scripture then why is he ignoring what the bible says about the authority that was established by god?

 

[Nakosis]

this thread is only for those who believe the bible is just as relevant today as it was then, that it's infallible, and who are defiant towards obama's stance on gay marriage.

when paul wrote the letter to romans, nero was in charge... a pretty shady character in history...yet he says this in the 13th chapter

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.


so isn't there a disconnect here? why are you rebelling against an authority god established? by challenging obama's position, you are in essence challenging god.


what say you?

I suspect Paul was trying to reign in a newly formed religion who's followers thought the world would end soon and they all be taken to heaven.

"Why pay taxes", "Why recognize earthly authority", ...etc.

A bunch of "Christians" running amok. Paul had his hands full trying to keep them out of trouble. Same reason he tried to discourage homosexuality. Them there Christians were probably nailing everything that moved. The world was ending, what would you do?

Paul, a leader of the church was trying to keep the Christians in-line. He wrote letters not of divine authority but of church leadership. Stop screwing your fellow disciples, stop getting into trouble with the authorities. He was reacting to the problems being created by this new church. I suspect he was setting down rules for Christians because Christians were terrorizing the place.

Paul's letters were relevant to a newly forming church for which he was trying to establish his own leadership.

While I don't agree with Paul's advise, I give him some leeway because I suspect he had his hands full trying to deal with a bunch of people who thought the world was going to end soon.

 

[waitasec]

but isn't the world coming to an end soon anyway?

 

[waitasec]

hmmm.


(a shameless bump )

 

[Evandr]

This is typical of those who look to the interpretations of man and then claim that the subject of that interpretation is the Bible so the interpretation must be valid - Not so.

The verse in question, Romans 13:1 says "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers..." and then it goes on to say that there is no power but of God.

God is a higher power to the power spoken of. The verse is only making intercession for those who would seek to use the Gospel to rebel against the government, answering evil for evil, it certainly does not mean that anything that a government would institute is good before God.

Being creatures of conscience we must seek for peace, obey the law so far as we can without violating the higher law, "God's Law". David was thrown into the Lion's den for violating the law which said one must not pray for a certain duration of time. Why was he spared if he esteemed the law to be wrong and violated it? According to the OP's vision of Romans 13:1 David was a sinner for praying.

In verse 3 Paul says that rulers are not a terror to good works. For me that means that rulers who stand approved of the "higher law" or, in other words "God's Law" will do nothing contrary to God's Law for God's law is of good works. Being subject to rulers and humbly seeking for peace is not wrong, in fact we are required to do so because anything else would cause such discord that there would be no room for the truth of the Gospel to grow. I believe that seeking to do the will of God, even if it is contrary to the law of the land, is the right thing to do as long as one seeks the inspiration of the Spirit which will never incite a man to evil, and God will support that individual so that they may be successful in their effort without causing undue discord and/or using such to rebel against every aspect of the prevailing governing powers.

 

[waitasec]

This is typical of those who look to the interpretations of man and then claim that the subject of that interpretation is the Bible so the interpretation must be valid - Not so.

The verse in question, Romans 13:1 says "Let every soul be subject to the higher powers..." and then it goes on to say that there is no power but of God.

God is a higher power to the power spoken of. The verse is only making intercession for those who would seek to use the Gospel to rebel against the government, answering evil for evil, it certainly does not mean that anything that a government would institute is good before God.

Being creatures of conscience we must seek for peace, obey the law so far as we can without violating the higher law, "God's Law". David was thrown into the Lion's den for violating the law which said one must not pray for a certain duration of time. Why was he spared if he esteemed the law to be wrong and violated it? According to the OP's vision of Romans 13:1 David was a sinner for praying.

In verse 3 Paul says that rulers are not a terror to good works. For me that means that rulers who stand approved of the "higher law" or, in other words "God's Law" will do nothing contrary to God's Law for God's law is of good works. Being subject to rulers and humbly seeking for peace is not wrong, in fact we are required to do so because anything else would cause such discord that there would be no room for the truth of the Gospel to grow. I believe that seeking to do the will of God, even if it is contrary to the law of the land, is the right thing to do as long as one seeks the inspiration of the Spirit which will never incite a man to evil, and God will support that individual so that they may be successful in their effort without causing undue discord and/or using such to rebel against every aspect of the prevailing governing powers.

it also says

The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted,

what authorities do you think paul is referring to?

 

[Evandr]

it also says

what authorities do you think paul is referring to?

None, He was referring to the power of authority. World history is filled with authority figures that were (and are) deemed, either outright or figuratively, as wicked individuals. It is a contradiction of ideas to believe that God would establish commandments and then make them subordinate to the will of a wicked authority or any other authority for that matter. Our Heavenly Father was simply stating that being subject to authority was initiated by him to promote order but by no means are we to misconstrue that as saying that we must ignore the commandments of God. There are ways to follow one’s own conscience without reviling against temporal authority. It is our responsibility to establish peace without belligerence to local authority, which can be done without bending to another's insistence that we alter our inalienable God given rights to conscience. We may be forced to go through the motions to maintain the peace but it is what is in our hearts that matters to God; if we have the courage we can be an influence for good and change in any given situation. I love the old prayer that goes "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference". One may be expected to accept outwardly that which they cannot change but that does not give that same person the right to use actions contrary to the commandments of God in their attempts to demonstrate their disgruntled attitude, there are better ways. Remember, Christ himself said "render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's and unto God that which is God's." The ramifications of that statement reach into the very heart of this matter.

 

[james2ko]

this thread is only for those who believe the bible is just as relevant today as it was then, that it's infallible, and who are defiant towards obama's stance on gay marriage.

when paul wrote the letter to romans, nero was in charge... a pretty shady character in history...yet he says this in the 13th chapter

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.


so isn't there a disconnect here? why are you rebelling against an authority god established? by challenging obama's position, you are in essence challenging god.


what say you?

Answer's quite simple, actually. According to several scriptural examples, God expects us to disobey God-ordained human authority only when their commands are in direct contrast to God's commands.

 

[waitasec]

Answer's quite simple, actually. According to several scriptural examples, God expects us to disobey God-ordained human authority only when their commands are in direct contrast to God's commands.

and can you provide a passage that can support this?

 

[waitasec]

None, He was referring to the power of authority. World history is filled with authority figures that were (and are) deemed, either outright or figuratively, as wicked individuals. It is a contradiction of ideas to believe that God would establish commandments and then make them subordinate to the will of a wicked authority or any other authority for that matter. Our Heavenly Father was simply stating that being subject to authority was initiated by him to promote order but by no means are we to misconstrue that as saying that we must ignore the commandments of God. There are ways to follow one’s own conscience without reviling against temporal authority. It is our responsibility to establish peace without belligerence to local authority, which can be done without bending to another's insistence that we alter our inalienable God given rights to conscience. We may be forced to go through the motions to maintain the peace but it is what is in our hearts that matters to God; if we have the courage we can be an influence for good and change in any given situation. I love the old prayer that goes "God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference". One may be expected to accept outwardly that which they cannot change but that does not give that same person the right to use actions contrary to the commandments of God in their attempts to demonstrate their disgruntled attitude, there are better ways. Remember, Christ himself said "render unto Cesar that which is Cesar's and unto God that which is God's." The ramifications of that statement reach into the very heart of this matter.

this doesn't make any sense.

13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.


quite a leap you took....


can you provide any passages that supports this leap of faith?

 

[james2ko]

and can you provide a passage that can support this?

In the OT we find the prophet Daniel praying and worshiping God in direct disobedience to an edict signed into law by King Darius (Daniel 6:10). He was thrown into a lion’s den but delivered by God.

Another example is the incident in which Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego refused to obey King Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to fall down and worship a golden image (Daniel 3:12). God delivered them from execution in a furnace of fire.

In the book of Acts, Peter and John were commanded not to speak or teach in the name of Christ (Acts 4:18;5:28). If you recall, years earlier, Christ commanded they were to preach and teach the gospel to the world (Mar 16:15; Mat 28:19-20). They were inspired to respond, "Do you think God wants us to obey you rather than Him?(Act 4:19-NLT) and "... We ought to obey God rather than men." (Act 5:29)

 

[waitasec]

In the OT we find the prophet Daniel praying and worshiping God in direct disobedience to an edict signed into law by King Darius (Daniel 6:10). He was thrown into a lion’s den but delivered by God.

Another example is the incident in which Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego refused to obey King Nebuchadnezzar’s decree to fall down and worship a golden image (Daniel 3:12). God delivered them from execution in a furnace of fire.

In the book of Acts, Peter and John were commanded not to speak or teach in the name of Christ (Acts 4:18;5:28). If you recall, years earlier, Christ commanded they were to preach and teach the gospel to the world (Mar 16:15; Mat 28:19-20). They were inspired to respond, "Do you think God wants us to obey you rather than Him?(Act 4:19-NLT) and "... We ought to obey God rather than men." (Act 5:29)

ok, then what paul wrote was bs.

 

[james2ko]

ok, then what paul wrote was bs.

Paul would never write "baseless scriptures" . We are to honor and respect authority and submit to every ordinance of man. Only when obedience to human rules and regulations violate the laws of God should we decline to obey, as evidenced throughout scripture. But even then, we must respectfully submit to the law's penalty (1 Pet 2:13). Daniel, his three friends, Peter and John did not resist the authorities. They all submitted to the penalty imposed by their actions. This is inline with Paul's admonition in Rom 13:1-2.