I’ve seen Niccolo, here, who appears to a market Anarchist who invokes Christianity. While I feel greatly inspired by the Christian Anarchism of Leo Tolstoy, Christian Anarchism is untenable because the Bible explicitly mentions the authority of governments, specifically their authority to collect taxes:
First, on taxation:
Matthew 22:15-22:
On the authority of governments:
Romans 13:1-3
Your signature, Niccolo, is a non-Biblical assertion that directly contradicts the second passage above.
That last part is further substantiated by the Biblical figure, Joseph. In the Torah, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers (something that shouldn’t be possible, according to some people here). After being made a slave, he didn’t feel any anger for his brothers nor did he develop any contempt for his owners. Instead he served his masters well and God rewarded him for that.
Now, I admit this sounds rather perverse: I’m not endorsing this position. I’m simply pointing out that the authors of the Bible did not seem to object to slavery at all. On the contrary, being a “rebellious slave,” was seen as a sin.
The meaning of the verse 'Render unto Caesar what is his" is controversial to begin with. You are going to have to do better than this. I’m not a Christian, and I’m sure Niccolo will have a grand time dispelling your misconceptions.
I am not a Christian either, but the passage in Romans says governing authorities, not government. For the Christian, especially under the Roman Empire, the idea that the Roman Empire was a moral entity approved by a god that they (the Romans) didn’t even acknowledge is silly. More likely he was talking about the early church. If they (the Roman Empire) were approved by god, ALL the early Christians were rebeling against god, since it says an authority established by god would “commend” them, not feed them to lions.
Jesus also didn’t say “Pay your taxes” he said, “you ain’t gonna trap me”. Render (voluntarily give) to Cesar what belongs to him. Big difference between that and taxation.
I think that Nathyn has a good point, but I refer to other supporting facts, namely that God Himself has a government. From the New Testament we know that God sent Christ, who called Apostles and Seventies to run his Church. God delegates to Christ and Christ delegates to prophets, teachers, priests, etc. In the Old Testament, God always had a prophet or judges. He delegated to these men to run His temporal affairs. Moses, under God’s instructions, created a government to govern the Israelites, etc. While God gives all men free will and the right to act voluntarily by making their own decisions between right and wrong, He does not leave us without an organized structure to understand what His will is for us. Thus, I also am of the opinion that Christianity recognizes the necessity of government and that Christian Anarchism is paradoxical.
Allthough I’m not Christian I would say that it depends entirely on one’s definition of God. If God could be seen simply as some primal force that runs the entire existance then I’d say that the God’s Will has no difference from the Natural Law.
Inquisitor, it’s only been controversial in recent times, when the rise of Liberalism and its influence on Christianity has led them to revise their interpretations.
What is the difference between “politicians” and “governing authorities”? Please note it says people should obey ALL governing authorities, because ALL governing authorities are put in place by God.
That’s a possible explanation, but it suggests then, that Jesus was often very misleading when he spoke – something I agree with, but not something Christians are willing to accept.
Exactly. God is referred to in the Bible hundreds if not thousands of times as king, lord, etc..
Also, on an interesting side-note: In the Talmud (Judaism’s holy text, aside from the Old Testament), Satan is considered part of God’s “council of angels.”
In divine court cases, Satan plays the role of prosecutor, while another angel plays the role of defendant, and God is the judge.
In no way does Christianity value “voluntariness.” Throughout the Bible, God regularly tells people what to do and if he doesn’t, he engages in petty violence against them.
That definition of God seems spurious. Polytheism existed before Monotheism. And “traditional” Monotheism regards God as a conscious all-powerful, all-knowing being, who is good, who created and governs the universe.
If you’re going to refer to God as “natural law,” it completely removes any religious element from the concept, because natural law is not conscious, all-powerful, all-knowing, or good. It creates and governs the universe, but it’s not something you can pray to and it’s not something that can necessarily provide any wisdom or salvation.
Your view on what Romans 13 describes is blatantly wrong. Romans 13:1, which exhorts the Christian to submit himself to the governing authorities, is followed by verses explaining why one submits himself to the government, and in verse 6, it explains that “this is also why you pay taxes”. It’s the government.
Romans 13:1-7, that section, does not say that God approves of the governing authorities, but that he has established or appointed them. In referencing that governing authorities “bear the sword”, the section references Genesis 9:6, where God institutes justice by the sword. The text describes God’s institution of government, that it functions to punish the wrongdoer, commend the good, and that Christians should not rebel against it.
It does not say that government is infallible or always performs its functions properly. As we observe governments not in line with Romans 13, we are only observing that man is fallen and imperfect. As far as Christianity is concerned, governing officials are no more perfect than the masses, and also require the saving grace provided by the death of Jesus Christ upon the cross.
Market anarchy the idea of social organization itself - as it is put forward with courts, justice agencies, and all - isn’t necessarily untenable for a Christian, I think. The untenability of anarchism is the view of the government as illegitimate, the drive toward secession from the government, the desire to create the market anarchy, the value placed upon it, etc. It’s just another social organization.
Jared, it doesn’t say, “You should support ONLY the governing authorities put in place by God.”
It doesn’t say government is infallible, but it does say all rulers are put in place by God himself. Those rulers themselves may be sinners, but they are still put in place by God, just as the Phaoraoh was put in place by God to give justification for the Jews’ exodus out of Egypt.
As Christians commonly say, “It’s all part of God’s plan.” This includes government.
Where did I mention anything about supporting government put in place by God? That doesn’t follow.
Of course sin is part of God’s plan, which he works out through all creation, but that doesn’t have to do with whether rulers are just or moral from our perspective.
Somebody else mentioned something. I tend to agree. You really are a troll.
Why do you assume Niccolo has read the Bible and has a rational justification for his beliefs? And please, don’t attack me personally at least not without addressing my arguments.
What does this mean to you?
Also, I didn’t say that governments are necessarily “just” from a Christian perspective. Jesus clearly didn’t think the Roman government was just. Only that Christianity says they have authority and should be obeyed. And thus, Christian Anarchism is untenable.
Politicians derive their authority from an earthly kingdom and governing authorities of the church derive their authority from the kingdom of god. I would think it is fairly obvious that gods people have always seperated themselves from the government. The only rulers they had are the line of David, surely appointed by god. Jesus said his people are no part of this world. Satan took Jesus on a mountain and offered to give him all the kingdoms of the world for one act of worship. Jesus didn’t say, “You can’t do that, they are all there because god appointed them.” I would say that is pretty good proof that the kingdoms belonged to Satan. Instead Jesus said, “Have no other gods” or something like that. Paul was a Roman soldier named Saul until he got converted. Then he ended up in jail because he wouldn’t follow the orders of the Romans. That doesn’t sound like being in subjection to the government. I hear tell that Paul was chosen because he was a Roman and couldn’t be put to death for disobeying the government.
Why wouldn’t christians accept that? There is a difference between lieing and saying, “Ceasars picture is on that, it belongs to him” and saying, “Hell yeah, paying taxes is exactly the thing we should be doing.”
I’m a Christian anarchist, and I think you’re wrong. That’s not to say its not controversial. Definitely is. I’m still working out my theory of Biblical Christian anarchism. If you are right, than I cannot be an anarchist anymore. However, I think there are good reasons to believe you are NOT correct.
This is an easy passage to refute what you are saying. Do you honestly think Jesus was saying that there are some spheres of life where God is not…well, God? That’s essentially what you are saying you believe this passage to say. If you interpret this verse as you are, it means that Jesus was saying “well, God has no authority in the areas of the state, but on other things we are to do everything to the glory of God.” This would contradict verses like I Kings 18:21, and Matthew 6:24 that state you cannot serve two masters. This means that there is no area of life where God is not authoritative. The way you interpret this verse, it proves too much. He doesn’t say what is God’s and what is Caesar’s. The rest of the Bible clearly states that EVERYTHING, government, personal life, EVERYTHING is God’s.
As for Matthew 13, well, I think this one is easy to refute too. Ok, first one of Biblical interpretation: You interpret the Bible by the Bible,ie you cannot isolate passages, disregard the entire rest of the Bible, and expect to be taken seriously. First, let’s talk about government. Can government be reconciled with “Thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal”? Absolutely not. Was there civil government in the Garden of Eden? No. During Israel’s time under patriarchy, there was no civil government. It was family centered clans. Judges interpreted God’s law. They didn’t legislate their own laws. God saved the Israelites from the statism of Egypt, and delivered them to a rule under him, as their king. Eventually, they grew tired of this, and demanded a king, like the Assyrians, which God had predicted in Deuteronomy 17:14. God said the move towards centralization was a rejection of him in 1 Samuel 8:7. The desire to be like the other ungodly nations surrounding Israel was a rejection of God’s command to be “set apart” (1 Samuel 8:5,20). God explained what would happen to them under a King in 1 Samuel 11. Can that be Christian? And yet, its HOW states must rule. God describes the state perfectly in that passage.
Okay, now that we have established fairly clearly that the state was not God’s way for Israel, lets return to Romans. How can that be reconciled with the events of early Israel? Take, for instance, Proverbs 16:4. God works all things, even evil things, too good. Note that clearly…God works ALL things. Thats simply one verse to establish that God predestines everything, and has exhaustive foreknowledge of the future- there are plenty more, but just run with this. In Romans 13:4, the state is said be God’s “servants”, translated as deaconeo, to serve (or, in other words, the state is God’s “deacon”). Ok, we know that God establishes everything…everything…meaning, even evil, which he works out to His good. We know due to 1 Samuel 11 that the state CANNOT serve God in the way God commands Christians too. They break just about every command simply by existing. So, we have to conclude that what Romans 13 means is not that he SANCTIONS them, or approves of them, but that he USES them. Romans 13 simply cannot be construed to mean that God actually says the state is a good thing. God uses Assyria to punish Israel, but he doesn’t think Assyria is a GOOD thing (isaiah 10:5). So we have to conclude that God uses the state, but he doesn’t approve of them. Search the Bible Nathyn, ask yourself at every possible turn, “does God tell people to establish the state?” You’ll find the answer is emphaticaly never.
I’ll deal with slavery at a later date, but while we’re on the subject of civil disobedience, in Exodus 1:17-21, God rewards the Midwives to rebel against the government. So, I don’t think you can say God doesn’t approve of civil disobedience. The fact that Joseph remained a slave simply points to the fact that that where God had him, and to trust God.
A couple of other quick notes. The early Christians living in Rome were VERY anti-state. They refused to fight in the military, resisted drafts, and refused to acknowledge the Roman government as something higher than God. They often worked counter to the government, setting up their own churches and meetings when they weren’t supposed to.
The last thing is that Jesus commands us to be anarchists. In Mark 10: 42-45,
“Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:”
The Greek word “to rule” is archein, where the word anarchy is derived from. It says we are to NOT be archists. We must be servants.
Why on earth would you base your beliefs about freedom on religion?
It’s not a “make or break” deal. A lot of Christians seem to make the horrible assumption that if you don’t assume the Bible is true, then you have to automatically be an amoral, relativistic, atheistic criminal.
The bible is not the alpha and omega, God is. The bible is a fundamental book in the Christian religion, but it does not monopolize the following of Christianity any more than any other dogma in the Church.
Again with this regurgitation of “give unto Caesar?” Come on, think farther than a wikipedia quote.
A. “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me?”
This directly suggests that Christ knew of a plan attempting to put Him in a troublesome position.
B. Paying attention to the context first find you will find that the entirety of 22 is spoken in parable:
Mat, 22:1 “Jesus again in reply spoke to them in parables, saying,”
C. The purpose of 22 was to establish Christ’s ability to outwit and answer His opponents in kind so that they would not be capable of retorting without looking foolish.
Mat, 22: 41-46
"41 2526 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them,
42[ 27](http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew22.htm#foot27) saying, "What is your opinion about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They replied, "David's."
43 He said to them, "How, then, does David, inspired by the Spirit, call him 'lord,' saying:
44 The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet"'?
45[ 28](http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew22.htm#foot28) If David calls him 'lord,' how can he be his son?"
46 No one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare to ask him any more questions."
D. The reply, "Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God." Mat, 22: 21 begs the question. What belongs to Caesar? More importantly, what belongs to God?
Accordingly, all belongs to God:
" 14 “Behold, to the LORD your God belong heaven and the highest heavens, the earth and all that is in it." Deut. 10:14
I’ve heard your argument many times, believe me, it’s not something that hasn’t been refuted.
Sigh…
The passage does not mean obligation to obey governments of the state; the passage is an appeal to obligation to obey the Church.
Rom 13:1-4
" 1 Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3 For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of authority? Do what is good and you will have praise from the same; 4 for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword for nothing; for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil."
The implication here is that a ruler exists to do good as a servant of God, however, if the ruler does not carry out the Law of the Lord, then that ruler possesses no authority as he has no authority from God. The administration that does good is from God, sent to do what God deems as good.What you’re misunderstand here is what Paul defines as “authority.” For Paul, authority does not mean claim to it, but it means establishment by God. Essentially Paul is making a tautology, as he countless numbers of times resisted authority of states, he must mean something different than what you suggest.
Furthermore, along the lines of servants established to do good, does God deem extortion to be good?
29The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they afflict the poor and the needy, and oppress the resident alien without justice. 30Thus I have searched among them for someone who could build a wall or stand in the breach before me to keep me from destroying the land; but I found no one. 31Therefore I have poured out my fury upon them; with my fiery wrath I have consumed them; I have brought down their conduct upon their heads, says the Lord GOD.
No, it seems that God does not like those that misrepresent His word or do against His will. Essentially what I take to mean by "tax" is the tithing to the Church that Christians owe to the only legitimate governing authority.
[quote="Nathyn"]
Your signature, Niccolo, is a non-Biblical assertion that directly contradicts the second passage above.
[/quote]
It actually doesn’t. If a governing authority were to embody the symbol of Christ and follow the Law of the Lord, then yes one would have complete obligation to it. However, this is not the situation with a state, as it possesses no authority because it acts contrary to the Law of the Lord.
As for my signature, it is a direct reference to the false worship of idols.
The bible actually never approves nor disapproves of slavery, it merely establishes slavery as an existing entity of action, and gives guidelines for how God wishes for people to interact given the existence of the institution. Moreover, it almost always goes back to the principle of serving Christ first,
“5 Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ, 6 not only when being watched, as currying favor, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, 7 willingly serving the Lord and not human beings, 8 knowing that each will be requited from the Lord for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.”
Eph. 6:5-8
Furthermore, the institution of slavery during this time was more of a debt to a person, not something you were born into like one would think of in the modern contexts. Slavery back then more or less embodied and employee-employer contract.
Nathyn, I’ve requested before and I’ll request it again. Your purpose here is obvious, it is to raise as much hell as you deem enjoyable. I would appreciate it if you did take into consideration the option of leaving the boards, as you are obviously not here to discuss civily, but merely to stir up trouble.
OK, yes, Niccolo. You aren’t even worth addressing. If you’re going to begin by appealing to “God’s beliefs” apart from what’s laid out in the Bible, nothing I say will change your mind.
You aren’t God and neither am I. Aside from that, God doesn’t exist, so claiming “God’s on my side,” is just silly.
The rest of your argument that follows is clear sophistry, although I do appreciate the good faith effort you made to lay out your subjective beliefs in detail.
One comment, though:
It’s important to note that a lot of Jews and Muslims consider Christianity itself to be an idolatrous religion. Look at Catholicism, with all of its saints (so many of which were previously Pagan Gods). Even if you walk into a Protestant church, though, 90% of the time you see a massive statue at the front of the church which everyone faces during sermons, and which couples stand before when they are married.
The specific definition of idolatry in the Torah is to refer to anything specific “on land, sea, or air” is God. By that definition, Trinitarianism as a whole is idolatrous, which is why Orthodox Jews I’ve spoken with have said that their religious law allows them to walk into Islamic mosques, but not Christian churches.
You should have realized that I’m a ROMAN CATHOLIC and thus don’t believe that the Bible contains all revealed truths of God. Though the bible is the word of God, it does not follow that it is the be all and end all of Christianity. Much more goes into the Christian faith than just the bible, though it is a fundamental aspect of our religion.
God exists:
I didn’t intend to deceive you with complexities and ingenious tricks.
It’s commonly agreed upon that Christ purposefully worded the statement “give unto Caesar” in order to both avoid trouble and the politicalization of God.
It’s also commonly agreed upon that Paul was referring to the Church as the governing authority established by the Lord as a servant for God’s work. If God’s establishment of states was what Paul meant, then he would have no reason to establish the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
Your arguments just don’t follow, sorry. They’re shallow and ill-informed. I was, at one point, seriously considering a life in the clergy, so I do understand and know an awful lot about Christianity and the tenants of Catechism.
I’ve not heard of these ones. Usually they just consider it to be wrong, as they worship the same Lord.
Except we don’t worship Saints, we pray to them to pray for us, but we do not worship them.
This was kind of refuted in 1675 when Pope Benedict XIV wrote De Servorum Dei Beatificatione et Beatorum Canonizatione.
If you’ve done recent research and archaelogical fact finding to refute the commonly held position in the academic world that Catholicism holds little pagan influence outside of ethnic traditions, then I’d be happy to se it.
It’s called the Crucifix. It serves as a reminder and symbol for our intent and as a point to propose humility in all situations.
Really? Because I take St. Thomas’ Summa Theology., II-II, q. xciv to be my source on the interpretation of idolatry.