Is there a Biblical form of Government for the nations?

[HappyChristian]

It'll take time, but this would be worthy of reading:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5FidNi1yz2wC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

[John81]

The worldy do as they please. For the Christian, the command is to be subject to whatever ruler is over you, pray for them, live Christlike. There is no exception clause.

[swathdiver]

A fellow church member lived in East Prussia prior to WW2. Her parents and grand-parents fell for Hitler's favorite verse of Romans 13 and did nothing to stop him from taking over their tiny country. They tried to go about their business but the churches were soon emptied and the cross in their classrooms replaced by photos of Hitler. Under the joys of socialism life became hard as food became scarce even before WW2 broke out. The Nazis came and intermittantly occupied their home, captured and killed all the Jews they could find and tortured and murdered those caught trying to help them. Soon the other socialists arrived, the invading Russian Communists who savagely raped all the girls and women of any age and drove the citizens out of East Prussia with no clothes, no food and plenty of persecution and horror. God was good to my friend and kept her alive and some of her family members throughout that horrorible ordeal which ended not with the war in Europe but nearly a decade after because Europe had been turned to rubble and was overrun by Communism.

I believe that Romans 13 applies only to a Godly government. The verses make no sense if referring to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia or present day Venezuela. It would also seem to contradict other verses and events in the Bible where the Lord used Godly people to overthrow un-Godly rulers. Christians in those countries are relentlessly hunted down and persecuted to put it mildly.

I am reminded of a comment made by Richard Wurmbrand regarding Matthew 22:21. Jesus gave an ambiguous answer to the Pharisees when He made his comment about Caesar and paying taxes. Caesar's Rome was an invading army that like Communism, bled it's captives of all their resources while contributing little if anything to their local economies. Caesar's money had an inscription claiming divinity, that he was a god. Would Jesus really tell us to serve a Tyrant and the Kingdom of God at the same time? In light of the creation of these United States under Divine Providence I don't think so.

Edited September 13, 2011 by swathdiver

[John81]

Rome was a great persecutor of Christians, a government that set forth to conquer and subjugate all around, killing multiple thousands, enslaving multiple thousands, murdering multiple thousands of Christians, promoting false gods, promoting their own leader as a god, etc. Yet while under that wicked government, by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, we have written in the Bible that Christians are to be subject to the government God has placed over us. We are to pray for governmental leaders and live Christlike in the midst of whatever government we find ourselves, good or bad, being content and shining the light of Christ.

Whether Ceasar, Hitler, Stalin, Castro or Obama, we are told in Scripture that God sets governmental leaders up for His purposes and He removes them in His timing.

Consider how much more the light of Christ shines in the darkness of a repressive government. Untold numbers came to Christ during WWII and the Cold War. Many who were more worldly centered "Christians" were exposed while those truly standing for Christ stood out as the peculiar people they were called to be, exampling Christ to all around.

One could say that all nations and governments were created under Divine Providence. None can exist unless God allows it to come to be for His own reasons.

It's not the Christians job to try and figure out what God is doing with regards to leaders and nations, nor is it the Christians duty to wage war against one form of human government in order to establish another human form of government. The duty of a Christian is to accept that we are but pilgrims here, our citizenship is in heaven and we are to be ambassadors for Christ, pursuing holiness and Christlikeness in our hearts and lives.

If we (Christians) obey Scripture, be content in whatever circumstances we find ourselves, walk in the Spirit and not in the flesh, then God's will shall most certainly be done in our lives and His glory will be served.

[HappyChristian]

No, John, what we have in Romans 13 is the adjuring to be subject to GOVERNMENT. It does not specify a certain kind of government. It sounds awful pretty to say that we are to accept whatever government we are born under, but the Bible does not teach that. Romans 13 does not teach that. If it did, the south was in sin, and we all know you don't believe that, right? At least, you've defended their "right" to secede vociferously in the past.

And, in all of those countries where there is persecution, Christians disobey their governments. All the time. Else they wouldn't be persecuted and/or end up in jail. But that's okay, right? Well, not if we are to obey whatever government, at all times, we are under. After all, if someone is under a godless government and ordered not to read their Bibles, they should just be content, right? We can't have it both ways - it is either right to disobey oppression at times, or it is wrong ALL the time.

Actually, the light of Christ shone much more brightly here in America after religious liberties were recognized via the Constitution than under any repressive government. Yes, I know that many times persecution brings about salvation, due to Christians standing for what is right...but, there again, they are disobeying their government, not being content and obedient, waiting for God to work. I know that Paul said they ought to obey God rather than man...but right there, he was disobeying the government God had placed over him. Again, can't have it both ways. Every time someone hands out a tract where it says no soliciting they are disobeying the government God has placed over them. If someone lives in an area that has outlawed spanking and they spank their kids, they are disobeying the government. And I could go on and on. Problem is, examples that I cite would be labeled as obeying God rather than man.

But, see, here's the problem: stating that obeying God rather than man is an exception to obeying the government over us (especially since there is "no exception clause"). And that flies in the face of "reasoning" that good Christians (as opposed to the worldly) have to obey their government and be content in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in (truly - what biblical Christian can be content with the evil going on in government? If they are, they aren't biblical...even Jesus got angry at sin). It is a double standard. Especially when looked at from the perspective that our forefathers believed they were obeying God. But 'godly' Christians nowadays say no! Our forefathers were worldly and disobedient because they had the gall to separate from a bad government. Pfffft. Because Christians nowadays are SO much more spiritual than our forefathers (not!).

[Wilchbla]

No, John, what we have in Romans 13 is the adjuring to be subject to GOVERNMENT. It does not specify a certain kind of government. It sounds awful pretty to say that we are to accept whatever government we are born under, but the Bible does not teach that. Romans 13 does not teach that. If it did, the south was in sin, and we all know you don't believe that, right? At least, you've defended their "right" to secede vociferously in the past.

And, in all of those countries where there is persecution, Christians disobey their governments. All the time. Else they wouldn't be persecuted and/or end up in jail. But that's okay, right? Well, not if we are to obey whatever government, at all times, we are under. After all, if someone is under a godless government and ordered not to read their Bibles, they should just be content, right? We can't have it both ways - it is either right to disobey oppression at times, or it is wrong ALL the time.

Actually, the light of Christ shone much more brightly here in America after religious liberties were recognized via the Constitution than under any repressive government. Yes, I know that many times persecution brings about salvation, due to Christians standing for what is right...but, there again, they are disobeying their government, not being content and obedient, waiting for God to work. I know that Paul said they ought to obey God rather than man...but right there, he was disobeying the government God had placed over him. Again, can't have it both ways. Every time someone hands out a tract where it says no soliciting they are disobeying the government God has placed over them. If someone lives in an area that has outlawed spanking and they spank their kids, they are disobeying the government. And I could go on and on. Problem is, examples that I cite would be labeled as obeying God rather than man.

But, see, here's the problem: stating that obeying God rather than man is an exception to obeying the government over us (especially since there is "no exception clause"). And that flies in the face of "reasoning" that good Christians (as opposed to the worldly) have to obey their government and be content in whatever circumstances we find ourselves in (truly - what biblical Christian can be content with the evil going on in government? If they are, they aren't biblical...even Jesus got angry at sin). It is a double standard. Especially when looked at from the perspective that our forefathers believed they were obeying God. But 'godly' Christians nowadays say no! Our forefathers were worldly and disobedient because they had the gall to separate from a bad government. Pfffft. Because Christians nowadays are SO much more spiritual than our forefathers (not!).

Hear, hear!

[swathdiver]

...we are told in Scripture that God sets governmental leaders up for His purposes and He removes them in His timing.

What about Hosea 8:4? "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not:"

Seems to me that God didn't put an Obama or a Hitler in power but allowed it to happen because those nations had turned from the Lord.

[Wilchbla]

What about Hosea 8:4? "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not:"

Seems to me that God didn't put an Obama or a Hitler in power but allowed it to happen because those nations had turned from the Lord.

Good catch.

I remember reading somewhere that the church in China was driven underground by the Communists because they did not take a stand against the government when they could have. It's claimed that a lot of their thinking of obeying the government no matter what came from the writings of Watchmen Nee. His book 'Spiritual Authority' in particular.

[Invicta]

The Nazis were not socialists, they were militant Catholics, as was Franco in spain, Mussolini in Italy. and the Utashi in the "Cathlolic State of Croatia". This was why your president Kennedy could say, according to a site praising "Adolph the Great"

"Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant figures who ever lived...

He had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death that will live and grow after him.
He had in him the stuff of which legends are made."

- John F. Kennedy,

President of the
United States of America

Edited September 13, 2011 by Invicta

[John81]

What about Hosea 8:4? "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not:"

Seems to me that God didn't put an Obama or a Hitler in power but allowed it to happen because those nations had turned from the Lord.

You have to read the context and history of this, which is speaking to a specific matter in order to make a specific point. If this were not the case, this verse would contradict what God says about Him being the one who sets up kings and removes them.

[John81]

The Nazis were not socialists, they were militant Catholics, as was Franco in spain, Mussolini in Italy. and the Utashi in the "Cathlolic State of Croatia". This was why your president Kennedy could say, according to a site praising "Adolph the Great"

A great many were Catholics, but they were socialists as well. The RCC would have been content to see Nazi Germany prevail, and their works during that time show such. As always, the RCC hedged its bets by having a few in their fold work the other side of the fence, but it wasn't until it became clear Nazi Germany would lose that the RCC made any real efforts against them.

[Invicta]

Stalin was also a Catholic, being educated at a Jesuit seminary.

But he was a professional atheist.

I don't see how you can call Hitler a socialist in any way, he was anti socialist.

His Nazi party was based on the Jesuits, and many of its leaders were

A couple of books, long out of print, which show the connection between Hitler and Rome, both: published about 1959, were:

1. Vatican Imperialism in the 20th Century by Avro Manhattan, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Mi.
2. The Vatican against Europe, by Edmund Paris. This was translated from French and the English edition was puplished by the PTS, Fleet St, London. There was also a later edition.

Come to think of it Edmund Paris wrote another book on the subject, The Secret History of the Jesuits, I don't know who published the first English edition, but a more recent one was published by Chick Publications.

[John81]

Stalin was also a Catholic, being educated at a Jesuit seminary.

But he was a professional atheist.

I don't see how you can call Hitler a socialist in any way, he was anti socialist.

His Nazi party was based on the Jesuits, and many of its leaders were

A couple of books, long out of print, which show the connection between Hitler and Rome, both: published about 1959, were:

1. Vatican Imperialism in the 20th Century by Avro Manhattan, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Mi.
2. The Vatican against Europe, by Edmund Paris. This was translated from French and the English edition was puplished by the PTS, Fleet St, London. There was also a later edition.

Come to think of it Edmund Paris wrote another book on the subject, The Secret History of the Jesuits, I don't know who published the first English edition, but a more recent one was published by Chick Publications.

Hitler was anti-communist, not anti-socialist. The political party he built up was the National Socialists. It's the "nationalist" aspect that liberals (mostly socialists themselves) object to.

Himmler was also a Catholic and while he mixed much paganism with it (not uncommon for Catholics) he based much of SS ritual upon Catholic rituals.

The RCC doesn't object to socialism for the RCC can thrive under socialism, but like Hitler, they do object to communism, for the RCC because it promotes atheism and works against organized religions, including the RCC.

[swathdiver]

'Invicta'
The Nazis were not socialists, they were militant Catholics...

NAZI stands for National Socialist German Workers Party

Socialism in ANY form is Statism which takes on the characteristics of its ruler, not of a pre-determined set of values. Hitler's Momma practiced Popery but that didn't make Hitler one. He was a Homosexual as were most of the early Brown Shirts and SS officers until he wiped them out one night shortly after taking power. Like all Statists, they took on the Jesuit motto, "the ends justify the means" which explains why they lie, cheat, steal and are hypocrites but don't believe themselves to be for their god is their belly, the rulers make the rules and decisions for the people who are viewed as too dumb to manage their own affairs. It means nothing that some claimed to belong to a religion, their works put them as Godless socialists doing satan's work.


'John81'
You have to read the context and history of this, which is speaking to a specific matter in order to make a specific point. If this were not the case, this verse would contradict what God says about Him being the one who sets up kings and removes them.

Ok, what are the verses that support your view John?

[Wilchbla]

Stalin was also a Catholic, being educated at a Jesuit seminary.

But he was a professional atheist.

I don't see how you can call Hitler a socialist in any way, he was anti socialist.

His Nazi party was based on the Jesuits, and many of its leaders were

A couple of books, long out of print, which show the connection between Hitler and Rome, both: published about 1959, were:

1. Vatican Imperialism in the 20th Century by Avro Manhattan, published by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Mi.
2. The Vatican against Europe, by Edmund Paris. This was translated from French and the English edition was puplished by the PTS, Fleet St, London. There was also a later edition.

Come to think of it Edmund Paris wrote another book on the subject, The Secret History of the Jesuits, I don't know who published the first English edition, but a more recent one was published by Chick Publications.

These are some good books you list.