...honour The King,

[heartstrings]

I did not, vote for Mr. OBama, nor will I vote  for anyone like him. But I got this post on my Facebook page, from one of my former church members, and thought it was interesting. Even though we all know, or should know, that Mr. OBama is an ungodly man and certainly not a Christian; do you think it's right, from a Christian perspective, to name a landfill after the leader if our land? Why or why not?

**Beware of the language in the last sentence.

http://dailycurrant.com/2014/11/17/north-dakota-names-landfill-after-OBama/

[HappyChristian]

Well, since in America we the people are supposed to be king and not the person in the White House...

 

But, no, I don't think that's appropriate.

[Genevanpreacher]

I am sure people of other countries, that hate America, for 'representing' Christianity and all its weaknesses, are laughing quite enough already.

[Ukulelemike]

Yeah, not appropriate. The Bible is clear that we are to submit to the powers that be, which are ordained of God. Doesn't mean we accept or follow after ,sin and wrong illegal behavior, but insofar as we are not dishonoring or disOBeying God or the law, we should submit.

 

Granted, with this President, not much legal to follow after, but we should still be praying for his wisdom and blessings. God will use OBama to do His perfect will, even as He used Pharaoh unwillingly. 

 

I have had, for some time, a theory that all men have free will, until such time as they decide to seek temporal power. Once they gain such power, governor or President or whatever, then they don't have the same will the did before, because the Bible says "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will." (Prov 21:1). Its true that OBama is not a king, per se, but he does, undoubtably, have great temporal power in the world, and as such, I believe would fall under the same as the king in this verse.

  So if God turns his heart whithersoever He will, that tells me that temporal rulers don't have the same free will as most men do, because God uses such to accomplish His will in the world scene, bringing about the expected end.

 

So, we may not like what OBama does, but the Lord is still using him to perform His will.

[John81]

No, Christians shouldn't support disrespecting the leaders.

 

Actually, under the American system the citizens are not "kings", citizens have the privilege of voting for who they want to be their "king" every four years. OBama was voted into the White House twice even though neither Heartstrings nor myself voted for him.

[HappyChristian]

Not true, John. The founders purposely set up a form of government that limited the president precisely because they did not want a king. We the people and the law are the authority...those elected to publuc office are to serve the law and the people - not be their lords. Sadly, most folks don't understand that today and is one of the reasons BO can get away with acting like a king.

The powers that be means government...read Romans 13...God ordained the fact that we should have government. Not the style of it - that, as our founders knew, is left up to each nation. I do not believe BO is God's will for this country. I do believe He allowed it, but that is not at all the same thing.

[John81]

Voters elect the president, and others, to be temporary authorities. Our (voters) authority is in the power of the ballot to vote in, or out, those in leadership. While holding office, the elected official wield the sword, not the people.

 

BO is allowed to play king, rather than president, because the other branches of government are failing to perform their constitutional duties of keeping the other branches of government in check, in accord with the Constitution. Most congressmen are too afraid of poll numbers, press coverage and worrying about the next election to actually use their constitutional power (which the Founder's placed more in the hands of congress than the other branches).

[DaveW]

You do realize of course that the word "king" is used in a variety of ways, from our Saviour, through earthly nayional leaders, on through local governmental leaders, to even the master of a feast.
That means that the word is PRIMARILY speaking of one who has authority.

OBama has been given certain authority - the BIBLICAL reference to "king" includes such as him.

[HappyChristian]

Nope. Not here in America, Dave. At least not according to our founders. He is to be subject to the very same laws we are. Kings aren't. Lex Rex.

Elected servants are just that, John. Servants who have been put into those positions to OBey and enforce the law, not rule. Big difference. But, again, too many people don't know that and that is why we have "lords" and "kings" in DC. Not because it's God's will or because He ordained it...but because He allows it-because if our sin.

[DaveW]

.

[HappyChristian]

Wow.

[John81]

The elected officials are selected by us to rule. The Constitution sets forth the areas the national leaders have rule over. Under the Constitution those things are very limited and should have little impact upon the average citizen. The vast majority of things were left for the States and people to rule over and determine.

 

Voters have allowed the national leaders over many decades to grow and expand their powers while growing and expanding the national government exceedingly beyond their constitutional limits. Many voters of differing stripes complain about at least some aspects of this but typically come election time they either vote back into power the those who have violated the Constitution or they vote in others of the same ilk.

 

In this fallen world such was bound to happen. Thomas Jefferson, among other Founders and early Americans, warned of how quickly the national government would try to grow and usurp power. So much of what the anti-federalists warned of has come to pass. Yet had we paid heed to the anti-federalists, some of Jefferson's suggestions, or those of others, the end result would be the same in that corruption would have occurred.

 

Considering most voters are lost in their sins and therefore serve their father the devil, can we really expect better leadership? Look at the leadership voters placed over them in the Middle East.

[ThePilgrim]

Why are the men (sometimes called The Founding Fathers) who instigated the rebellion against the God ordained power of King George such popular men in the eyes of American Christians?  Was it because there rebelion against God's appointed authority over them one somehow differernt than the God appointed authority over our reighning authorities?  I get so confused when I listen to the arguements in favor of never standing up to evil because the evil is believed to be God's will.  So confused.  

[John81]

Why are the men (sometimes called The Founding Fathers) who instigated the rebellion against the God ordained power of King George such popular men in the eyes of American Christians?  Was it because there rebelion against God's appointed authority over them one somehow differernt than the God appointed authority over our reighning authorities?  I get so confused when I listen to the arguements in favor of never standing up to evil because the evil is believed to be God's will.  So confused.  

For the most part, American Christians have used a variety of twisted (unbiblical) reasoning to justify their actions.

 

Scripture speaks of God wanting us to have spiritual liberty but some twist that into a mandate for Christians to fight, rebel and kill in order to establish our particular view of liberty on earth.

 

Some claim that if a government doesn't govern as they want it to then it's okay to rebel. That's not scriptural but it does massage the guilt of rebellion.

 

Most Christians have no more true understanding of the colonial period and the reality of early Americans, the government rulings, etc., than the average public school child.

 

What's done is done, but there is no biblical justification for the rebellion that eventually led to the formation of the USA.

[Ukulelemike]

I have thought about the rebellion against Britain, and the way I see it, is that England wasn't ruling in America-all they were doing was collecting taxes and goods, while those here governed. England left off its responsibilities as rulers, and were treating America rather as a tributary that England had conquored in war, rather than as it's property. So, after a few hundred years, America declared that, since it was already running things, while not being allowed the fruit of its labor, it would be independent. And of course, EVERYTHING was done by war in the past. Did God encourage Israel to evil rebellion against 'rightful' rulers when He had them take Canaan? Was it rebellion for the Hebrews to leave Egypt to start their own nation? Rome came in, through force of arms, and took control of Israel, and even Jesus said they should pay tribute.

 

England, however, just decided America was theirs because they sent settlers there to find gold and whatever they could find to enrich England. Americans decided that since they were doing the work, doing the local governing and policing anyways, that they should keep what they labored for.   I don't see it as a rebellion. Unlike Israel, God, as far as we know, didn't deed this land to anyone, thus, it fell to whomever had strength to take and keep it. So America was born.