Cada día soy más revolucionario, cada día soy más socialista…Voy a llevar a Venezuela hacia el socialismo, con el pueblo y los trabajadores…Ni se negocia la revolución, ni se negocia el socialismo, porque cada día estoy más convencido de que el socialismo es el reino de Dios aquí en la tierra. Eso fue lo que vino a anunciar Cristo
Or in English:
Every day I’m more of a revolutionary, every day I’m more socialist… I’m going to take Venezuela toward socialism, with the people and the workers…The revolution is not negotiable, socialism is not negotiable, because every day I’m more convinced that socialism is the kingdom of God on earth. That is what Christ came to announce.
Really no surprise here, as those in power both on the political right and left have repeatedly convinced themselves they are responsible for bringing about "God's will" through government force. Where or how exactly these same leaders convince themselves that Christ allows for murdering, punishing, fining, coercing, or marginalizing those who would oppose him still escapes me, but I am sure it is because I am simply missing those pages in my copy of the Bible, or perhaps I am just using a wrong translation.
11 comments:
Yes maybe you should find the Bible translated by Libertariapedia.com. I'm sure if you interpret God's word through your thoughts instead of your thoughts through His Word you'll be better off.
Hey, I am partial to the New Communist Standard translation. Hezekiah 1:1 "The word is as a collective deems it. Mine, yours, ours...Selah"
Man, my tongue seems to be stuck, in the left leaning side of my cheek.
I prefer to speak in the King James English as Jesus did.
But Justus, don't you know that every governing authority has been instituted by God? Its in the Bible, look it up. So Hugo Chavez MUST be the instrument of God.
Assuming you agree that Paul got it right (which I may or may not agree). I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'...
Rosen,
You remember in the O.T. when Israel wanted a king? God said, "He will be tough on you..he will cause you a great burden!" That's paraphrasing. But, the Israelites wanted one anyway because all the other nations had kings, why shouldn't they.
Then along came Saul...he taxed them and was hard on them...and caused them much burden.
Do you suppose God allows bad leaders to come into power as a sort of "you get what you deserve" sort of thing? Or maybe, "ok, you want it, here you go!"
I beleive that Paul's writings are the very words of God...so when you say that Paul may or may not have gotten it right, I say you are actually saying...God may or may not have gotten it right!
Hey I am not alone in this...you know Peter also considered Paul's writings as scripture.
But, alas, we digress. I beleive God will use leaders of all kinds for different purposes. I agree with God's word that says that the leaders are from Him. Who are you Rosen...or any of us to question God's plan or motives.
Are Chaves' policies evil? Burdensome? Yes...but the people voted for him. I guess you get what you deserve...just reference the story of Israel and Saul.
Lumbee, I don't necessarily believe that everything that happens is the will of God - including the election of political leaders. Sorry, but I disagree, and if that puts me at odds with Brother Paul, then Paul would understand that a Baptist like me would feel compelled to retain his prerogative to read the scriptures according to his own conscience and in view of his own relationship to God. And, by the way, I've never said, nor would I say that Paul's epistles are not scripture as you imply above.
To answer your question directly, I'm not sure God gives out what people deserve - I hope not, because if God were into giving out what we deserve, none of us would have any hope of salvation. God's radical grace in the resurrected Christ doesn't lead me to the conclusion that God gives people what they deserve any more than do specific examples of God's vengeance in the Old Testament. Now, I do agree that God allows us to take actions or make choices - even horrible ones - that have awful consequences for ourselves and others. I would submit the contrapositive is also true: from time to time we may benefit from the choices and actions of others, even when we've done nothing to deserve those benefits. Is that the will of God? I honestly can't say, but I have hope.
Now, I wouldn't go so far as to equate Argentina with God's chosen people Israel. Your reference to First Samuel is instructive, but strict application may not be entirely appropriate. Remember that Saul was anointed by God, as opposed to elected by men. So, a comparison between Saul and Hugo Chaves isn't necessarily the best analogy, unless you first assume that the results of democratic elections are pre-determined by God.
Finally, I fully understand that you view the Bible as the inerrant and transcribed word of God. You've made your position abundantly clear on multiple occasions, and I respect your position. I simply take a different view for reasons that I don't have time to do justice here (not to mention the fact that no one really cares what I think). So in that respect we disagree. But just because we disagree doesn't give you license to equate my criticism or skepticism with me challenging God's motives - that's nothing more than you taking the easy way around what I've said. I admit that there are things in the Bible that I struggle to understand, accept, and reconcile with my own experience. But I would simply ask that you refrain from attempting to distill my faith into a simple syllogism that because I retain some doubt, I am questioning God's plan and motives and, by extension, calling into question God's very sovereignty. Faith is far too complicated to be explained away by a simple exercise in deductive reasoning, wouldn't you agree?
There's a lot to comment on here: government, God's will, scriptural inspiration,
grace vs. discipline. I'll stay away from most of it because Lumbee and Rosen are expressing themselves well, but I can't resist poking my nose in a little bit.
Rosen, I'm pretty sure you were just being tongue in cheek, but God instituting authority and being God's instrument are two very different things. As you said, both are in the Bible. The question is how do we apply it and when.
Lumbee, I know what you're getting at, so I'll let you keep going, but I think you would agree that "getting what we deserve" isn't really the issue here. The issue is submitting to government, how and how long.
The sun shines on both the evil and the good, and it rains on the just and the unjust alike. (Matthew 5)
Agreed with an asterik my friend.
I agree completely that God doesn't give us what we deserve...I beleive that is called Mercy. He also gives us what we do not deserve...Grace.
So, whether He is showing us Grace or Mercy in our leaders is up to Him. I do beleive he allows us free will. And elections...albeit decided by men..in most cases..are certainly superintended by God.
What I took issue with is the direct challenge to the veracity of the truth that all leaders do come from God.
My point was, because some leaders are bad (from our point of view) does not in any way challenge the truth in Romans that Paul teaches. The point is we are to submit to all authorities so that we may lead a peaceful life. (and be a better witness for Christ).
Did got choose Hugo Chaves, sure. Maybe allow would be a better choice of words. Why? No idea. Above my pay grade.
I would also add..If I offended. I am sorry.
If I could pick a theological mentor, I think it would be John Howard Yoder. For a fairly quick and mostly decent read of his views on government and pacifism, specifically regarding the Romans passages, see the following link:
Yoder on Pacifism and Romans
Lumbee, I'm not offended. However, I did take issue with the observation that because I'm not sure I agree with Paul, or I don't agree with what I think Paul is saying, necessarily leads to the conclusion that I question God's prevenient will.
I think we agree that all power on earth comes from and is, therefore, subordinate to and ultimately judged according to God's own power. And we agree that God can transform even evil into the instrument of his will. However, I'm not sure those two observations lead to the conclusion that, as I understand Paul to say, God, in all instances, ordains governments (even evil ones) so that his will may be achieved. No, I think God's will is achieved despite the evil men may do, not because of or as the genesis of the evil men may do.
By analogy, throughout the history of the church, there have been those who have said, effectively, sin abundantly such that grace may abound. But just because grace is available does not mean that God ordains man's sin. (Even Paul discusses this, and I wonder out of curiosity whether Paul was himself of two minds, or if his own understanding developed over the course of writing his epistles.) But the bottom line is that God's will works in spite of man's actions, just as God's will works regardless of the governmental regime.
So I agree that the powers on earth originate with God's own power. But I stand by my position that all leaders that wield such power are always God's own elect. If so, then does that mean that those who support their candidate are sinful and contrary to the will of God if their candidate loses? What about those who work for justice in the face of the oppressive actions of an evil regime? What about those who remain idle and allow the evil and injustice of the system to perpetuate itself? Should we then just throw up our hands and say "'tis God's will," effectively giving in to the evil of the system? I'm not sure I agree with that either. But what to do then? I would agree with Justus (and with you, Lumbee) that if anything is to be done, it must be done peacefully.
As a personal note: my problem with the passage in Romans can be traced directly to an experience where I was essentially told that I was outside of God's will because I worked to support a particular candidate that lost an election. While Romans 13 wasn't quoted to me, it was abundantly clear that it was the genesis of the statement. So if I seem a tad on the sensitive side, it stems from one Christian's glib attack on his brother for working against God's ordained and chosen leader by supporting a challenger during election season. Perhaps that illuminates my position somewhat.
AH, I see. Actually I agree that God accomplishes his will despite our sin. Even, and including, the election of leaders.
Let me just say however, your "glibness" (is that a word? It should be) in dealing with Paul and his writings is offensive to me in as much as your senses are peaked in your experience.
I would never accuse a Christian for being out of God's will because of who they vote for. That is just stupid.
I will, however, defend the faith. I do beleive that most of the Church Age doctrine comes from Paul's writings. If they are not to be relied on, then how can we distinguish truth from un-truth.
Also, Paul was not only an Apostle but the highest ranking Apostle.
Apostles were the highest ranking humans in the church structure before the canon of scripture was completed. Paul experienced direct revelation from God.
I caution all to err on the side of the scriptures..yes including Pauls epistles, rather than on the side of temporal experiences.
Rosen, your experience with that idiot (and yes I mean the harshness) christian has absolutely no impact on the veracity of that verse. Also, I say again...scripture should be held in the highest regard. Therefore, glibness in reference to scripture is uncalled for.
Post a Comment