PDA

View Full Version : Romans 13 and Government



TheAnswer99
Apr 25th 2009, 02:57 AM
I'm sure you guys have discussed this before, but I'm having trouble with Romans 13:1-7...

So...I need help answering the following:

1.) God put Hitler in charge? Would it have been wrong for a German citizen to assassinate Hitler?

2.) Was the American Revolution an un-Christian rebellion against God since it was a secessionist movement against a government that was established by God?

3.) Is there any just time that people can overthrow a government?

4.) We must accept a government that supports abortions? Can we vote against it?

5.) Can we ever criticize the government?

6.) Was Paul simply speaking out against anarchy and would accept a government takeover or the replacement of one government with another (American Revolution)?

thanks for your help

TheAnswer99
Apr 25th 2009, 03:04 AM
By the way, here are the verses in question (KJV)

1 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+13:1&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+13:2&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 3 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+13:3&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: 4 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+13:4&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. 5 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+13:5&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+13:6&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7 (http://www.studylight.org/desk/?query=ro+13:7&t=kjv&sr=1&l=en) Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 25th 2009, 07:02 AM
I'm sure you guys have discussed this before, but I'm having trouble with Romans 13:1-7...

So...I need help answering the following:

1.) God put Hitler in charge? Would it have been wrong for a German citizen to assassinate Hitler?

2.) Was the American Revolution an un-Christian rebellion against God since it was a secessionist movement against a government that was established by God?

3.) Is there any just time that people can overthrow a government?

4.) We must accept a government that supports abortions? Can we vote against it?

5.) Can we ever criticize the government?

6.) Was Paul simply speaking out against anarchy and would accept a government takeover or the replacement of one government with another (American Revolution)?

thanks for your help

Well, revolt is definitely not an option, but criticism is. I don't recall the Bible saying anything against criticising the government.

If you live in a particular nation, you are pretty much bound to accept the system that governs it -- but that doesn't mean that you have to approve of everything that it does. If moral injustice is taking place, I do believe that it's our duty as Christians to speak up, and make our objections known....even try to change things as best we can, within the confines of the law.

As far as Hitler is concerned -- that's sort of a tough one. On the one hand, murder is a sin, but on the other hand, Hitler spearheaded a murderous regime....and against God's chosen people, even. Scripture says nothing against killing in warfare, and since Hitler was commander-in-chief of the Nazi army, I suppose that he was fair game. I think that the Scriptural thing for a German to do would be to move out of the country, and join the "other side." That way, the person is no longer under that rulership.

I think that Germans who supported Hitler were sinning, just because they were also supporting all of the autrocities he committed. The Bible tells us that, if any government tries to force us to go against God, then defiance is justified.

Sojourner
Apr 25th 2009, 11:11 AM
Well, revolt is definitely not an option...Our (America's) founding fathers thought it was.

PREAMBLE TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENTANCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Butch5
Apr 25th 2009, 12:12 PM
I'm sure you guys have discussed this before, but I'm having trouble with Romans 13:1-7...

So...I need help answering the following:

1.) God put Hitler in charge? Would it have been wrong for a German citizen to assassinate Hitler?

2.) Was the American Revolution an un-Christian rebellion against God since it was a secessionist movement against a government that was established by God?

3.) Is there any just time that people can overthrow a government?

4.) We must accept a government that supports abortions? Can we vote against it?

5.) Can we ever criticize the government?

6.) Was Paul simply speaking out against anarchy and would accept a government takeover or the replacement of one government with another (American Revolution)?

thanks for your help

Hi 99,

We don't have to worry about our government, there is nothing that will be wrong or unjust with our government, it will be a righteous government. Christ is the head of "our" government. We are citizens of another kingdom, we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. In His prayer in John 17 He said of His disciples they were not of this world.

John 17:14 ( KJV )
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Your questions arise from man's desire to be in the kingdoms of the world. If Christians were to be involved in the kingdoms of the world, Jesus could have made great strides if He had let them make Him king, however, when they sought to make Him king, He left them.

John 6:15 ( KJV )
When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Think of the good that Jesus could have done as a king. Given the powers of a king He could have made laws banning all kinds of evils. Yet He chose not to, because His kingdom is not of this world and He was not interested in being involved with the kingdoms of the world.

Another thing to think about is, how does a Christian follow Christ and be involved in another kingdom? Can one be a citizen of Britain and be president of the United States? No. How can we be involved with an earthly government, since none follow the laws of Christ? If abortion is against the law of Christ, how can we be active in that government? That is one of the reasons why so many people today are against the religious right. They see it as Christians trying to force their beliefs on everyone, Jesus did not force His preaching on anyone, He preached His message, those who accepted, He accepted, those who rejected it, He rejected. It was the same with the apostles, and it was through this love that many were being drawn to Christianity. However today we have Christians trying to create laws governing non-Christians and they rebel against it. The long and short of it is that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, His disciples were not of this world, we are not to be of this world. We are told to be holy and sanctified, which means we are to be set apart, set apart from this world. How, if we are actively engaged in the governments of this world, are we set apart?

Equipped_4_Love
Apr 25th 2009, 03:45 PM
Our (America's) founding fathers thought it was.

PREAMBLE TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENTANCE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

Okay -- now point out some Scripture to prove your point.

The OP didn't ask about the Declaration of Independence -- He asked about the book of Romans.

TheAnswer99
Apr 25th 2009, 11:57 PM
Bump

I'm legitimately interested in your answers - I'm not personally looking for a debate...though one is sure to arise heh

Butch5
Apr 26th 2009, 12:13 AM
TheAnswer99---1.) God put Hitler in charge?

I would say no. God lets evil kingdom rise but does not cause them



TheAnswer99---Would it have been wrong for a German citizen to assassinate Hitler?

Yes, it wold be murder and it is against God's law

TheAnswer99---2.) Was the American Revolution an un-Christian rebellion against God since it was a secessionist movement against a government that was established by God?

First, we don't know that the English government was established by God, however, it was wrong to go to war with England since Christians are not to kill, you had Christians killing Christians


TheAnswer99---3.) Is there any just time that people can overthrow a government?

Not Christians


TheAnswer99---4.) We must accept a government that supports abortions? Can we vote against it?

Christians are not supposed to be of this world, so there would be no reason to vote in it. We are to accept the government that we are under unless it's laws are contrary to God's law. In this case we are to disobey that law.



TheAnswer99---5.) Can we ever criticize the government?

Yes


TheAnswer99---6.) Was Paul simply speaking out against anarchy and would accept a government takeover or the replacement of one government with another (American Revolution)?

No Paul was teaching the Romans to follow Christ's lead.

cactusjack
May 10th 2011, 04:58 AM
Not all governments and/or kings are ordained/set-up by God. See Hosea 8:4 "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: ....."
Hitler as a man, and a dictator, was still under the structure of the German so-called government, which was a body-politic/corporate-type-entity/legal-fiction.
There are other verses which must be examined with Romans 13:1-7, which are seldom touched upon by most pastors.
Romans 13:1-7 applies to authorities ie. people in authority. Verse 3 reads ‘rulers’ and verse 4 reads ‘he’. It does not apply to the so-called governments of the U.S.A. or COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA or GERMANY (Capital letters intended) for example. Romans 13:1-7 doesn’t even use the word ‘government. The so-called governments are corporations, being legal fictions. You can look up ‘legal fiction’ in Bouvier’s or Black’s ‘law’ dictionaries etc. A legal fiction only exists on paper and in the mind of man. One can not feel, see, smell, taste or hear a legal fiction. Corporations were invented to give various entities legal perpetuity. Before these so-called governments became corporations, they were still bodies-politic, being a corporate-type entity, being a legal fiction. God does not deal with legal fictions within His line of authority. Legal fictions are the invention of man. Even if you wish to comment on the interpretation of the original Greek per the words ‘rulers’ & ‘he’ in verses 3 & 4, it does not matter, as God does not recognise legal fictions.
All U.S.A. so-called governments, for example, are ALL corporations, and the so-called laws are actually statutes. Statutes are merely the rules for a society. Laws are the lawful rules for a society. For the rules to be lawful, they must be founded on God’s laws, Godly common law principles and a lawful government. The so-called laws in the U.S.A. fail on all three of these conditions, similarly as here on the continent commonly known as Australia.
There is no controversy whatsoever with Romans 13:1-7 when one fully comprehends the structure of so-called government.

RollTide21
May 10th 2011, 04:36 PM
Hi 99,

We don't have to worry about our government, there is nothing that will be wrong or unjust with our government, it will be a righteous government. Christ is the head of "our" government. We are citizens of another kingdom, we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world. In His prayer in John 17 He said of His disciples they were not of this world.

John 17:14 ( KJV )
I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.

Your questions arise from man's desire to be in the kingdoms of the world. If Christians were to be involved in the kingdoms of the world, Jesus could have made great strides if He had let them make Him king, however, when they sought to make Him king, He left them.

John 6:15 ( KJV )
When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take him by force, to make him a king, he departed again into a mountain himself alone.

Think of the good that Jesus could have done as a king. Given the powers of a king He could have made laws banning all kinds of evils. Yet He chose not to, because His kingdom is not of this world and He was not interested in being involved with the kingdoms of the world.

Another thing to think about is, how does a Christian follow Christ and be involved in another kingdom? Can one be a citizen of Britain and be president of the United States? No. How can we be involved with an earthly government, since none follow the laws of Christ? If abortion is against the law of Christ, how can we be active in that government? That is one of the reasons why so many people today are against the religious right. They see it as Christians trying to force their beliefs on everyone, Jesus did not force His preaching on anyone, He preached His message, those who accepted, He accepted, those who rejected it, He rejected. It was the same with the apostles, and it was through this love that many were being drawn to Christianity. However today we have Christians trying to create laws governing non-Christians and they rebel against it. The long and short of it is that Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, His disciples were not of this world, we are not to be of this world. We are told to be holy and sanctified, which means we are to be set apart, set apart from this world. How, if we are actively engaged in the governments of this world, are we set apart?Outstanding post.

http://www.gifsoup.com/view4/1092257/applause-o.gif

keck553
May 10th 2011, 04:43 PM
The bottom line is that Christians are not to provoke anyone, even evil people into sinful actions. Pretty simple, really.

1of7000
May 11th 2011, 06:48 AM
In Romans 13 The context is the government of the church of the body

Longsufferer
May 11th 2011, 07:00 AM
Other´s will say what they will, so also shall I. In plain truth (for me) God gives the office, but then it is up to the person whether they will follow righteousness or sin; just as was with king Saul, who was on God´s side for a while, but then changed to corrupt his ways. To follow righteousness or to follow sin, are both voluntary, and have always beeen with God, to see where our sincerity actually lies.

cactusjack
May 11th 2011, 12:19 PM
Which parts, RollTide21, due you consider 'Outstanding' in response to a posting by Butch5?
Butch5 stated "We are citizens of another kingdom, we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world."
Does Butch5 have a driver's license, a marriage certificate, a (so-called) government issued birth certificate? Does he pay taxes? Does he use (so-called) government identification when traveling on a plane? Does he have a bank account? Does he have any other types of express contracts with the so-called governments? Does he have any implied/adhesive ('sticky') contracts with the so-called governments? If he has any of these then he is obviously ignorant or deceived to comment "we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world".
Butch5 asked "how does a Christian follow Christ and be involved in another kingdom?" and "How can we be involved with an earthly government, since none follow the laws of Christ?" and he commented "we are not to be of this world."
If he has any express or implied contracts with the so-called governments, then he is of this world, and is involved with earthly kingdoms. A contract can simply be defined as an interaction between parties where there is an offer by one party, then acceptance by the other party. It is through these express & implied contracts which gives the courts of these so-called governments jurisdiction over his actions.

RabbiKnife
May 11th 2011, 02:06 PM
Not all governments and/or kings are ordained/set-up by God. See Hosea 8:4 "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: ....."
Hitler as a man, and a dictator, was still under the structure of the German so-called government, which was a body-politic/corporate-type-entity/legal-fiction.
There are other verses which must be examined with Romans 13:1-7, which are seldom touched upon by most pastors.
Romans 13:1-7 applies to authorities ie. people in authority. Verse 3 reads ‘rulers’ and verse 4 reads ‘he’. It does not apply to the so-called governments of the U.S.A. or COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA or GERMANY (Capital letters intended) for example. Romans 13:1-7 doesn’t even use the word ‘government. The so-called governments are corporations, being legal fictions. You can look up ‘legal fiction’ in Bouvier’s or Black’s ‘law’ dictionaries etc. A legal fiction only exists on paper and in the mind of man. One can not feel, see, smell, taste or hear a legal fiction. Corporations were invented to give various entities legal perpetuity. Before these so-called governments became corporations, they were still bodies-politic, being a corporate-type entity, being a legal fiction. God does not deal with legal fictions within His line of authority. Legal fictions are the invention of man. Even if you wish to comment on the interpretation of the original Greek per the words ‘rulers’ & ‘he’ in verses 3 & 4, it does not matter, as God does not recognise legal fictions.
All U.S.A. so-called governments, for example, are ALL corporations, and the so-called laws are actually statutes. Statutes are merely the rules for a society. Laws are the lawful rules for a society. For the rules to be lawful, they must be founded on God’s laws, Godly common law principles and a lawful government. The so-called laws in the U.S.A. fail on all three of these conditions, similarly as here on the continent commonly known as Australia.
There is no controversy whatsoever with Romans 13:1-7 when one fully comprehends the structure of so-called government.

Nice theory, but it isn't true.

Please identify for me who the one single male ruler of England is.
Or Sweden.
Or the USA.
Or of any democracy or republic in existence today.

RabbiKnife
May 11th 2011, 02:07 PM
Maybe we should ask Jesus about paying taxes.

RollTide21
May 11th 2011, 02:08 PM
Which parts, RollTide21, due you consider 'Outstanding' in response to a posting by Butch5?
Butch5 stated "We are citizens of another kingdom, we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world."
Does Butch5 have a driver's license, a marriage certificate, a (so-called) government issued birth certificate? Does he pay taxes? Does he use (so-called) government identification when traveling on a plane? Does he have a bank account? Does he have any other types of express contracts with the so-called governments? Does he have any implied/adhesive ('sticky') contracts with the so-called governments? If he has any of these then he is obviously ignorant or deceived to comment "we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world".
Butch5 asked "how does a Christian follow Christ and be involved in another kingdom?" and "How can we be involved with an earthly government, since none follow the laws of Christ?" and he commented "we are not to be of this world."
If he has any express or implied contracts with the so-called governments, then he is of this world, and is involved with earthly kingdoms. A contract can simply be defined as an interaction between parties where there is an offer by one party, then acceptance by the other party. It is through these express & implied contracts which gives the courts of these so-called governments jurisdiction over his actions.I think you missed his point. I understand him to be, in essence, saying that we should not involve our Spiritual convictions in the affairs of our worldly government because the Spiritual kindgom of which we are a part is completely separate from the worldly kingdom.

Caleb
May 11th 2011, 11:44 PM
Not all governments and/or kings are ordained/set-up by God. See Hosea 8:4 "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: ....."


Hi cactusjack!

This is about kings and princes of Israel.
Israel was the house of the Lord

Caleb
May 11th 2011, 11:52 PM
Which parts, RollTide21, due you consider 'Outstanding' in response to a posting by Butch5?
Butch5 stated "We are citizens of another kingdom, we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world."
Does Butch5 have a driver's license, a marriage certificate, a (so-called) government issued birth certificate? Does he pay taxes? Does he use (so-called) government identification when traveling on a plane? Does he have a bank account? Does he have any other types of express contracts with the so-called governments? Does he have any implied/adhesive ('sticky') contracts with the so-called governments? If he has any of these then he is obviously ignorant or deceived to comment "we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world".

So, if come from the UK and visit the USA, and drive a car and have ID and a bank account etc, does that make me (a visitor) a citizen of the USA?


Butch5 asked "how does a Christian follow Christ and be involved in another kingdom?" and "How can we be involved with an earthly government, since none follow the laws of Christ?" and he commented "we are not to be of this world."
If he has any express or implied contracts with the so-called governments, then he is of this world, and is involved with earthly kingdoms. A contract can simply be defined as an interaction between parties where there is an offer by one party, then acceptance by the other party. It is through these express & implied contracts which gives the courts of these so-called governments jurisdiction over his actions.

cactusjack
May 12th 2011, 01:10 PM
Which parts, RabbiKnife, in your short comment, are a nice theory but not true?
You merely made a comment without rebutting anything whatsoever.
Just as for a statement, a debate or an affidavit, a rebuttal of facts or information has to be made point for point.
It is difficult on a forum due to space limitations, however you did not even attempt to rebut any specific points.
Have you ever heard of a legal fiction, corporate person-hood, corporation soles, a cestui que trust etc.? Have you ever considered that a corporation exists only on paper and in the mind of man. You could start by reading Blackstone’s ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’ (1765 - 1769) which explains the principles of legal fictions, corporations and corporation-soles etc. quite nicely, and then there are clues in Bouvier's and Black's 'law' dictionaries regarding the differences between the words 'lawful' and 'legal', 'law' and 'statute', 'people' and 'persons' etc .
You want to know who is the single male ruler of England, or Sweden, or the U.S.A., or of any democracy or republic.
For a start, how could anyone answer a question about ANY democracy or republic if you don't say which democracy or republic you mean.
Lets start with the U.S.A. Do you mean the so-called organic nation known as the United States of America, or do you mean the corporate entity known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?
There is no one single male ruler of the U.S.A., whatever you may mean by U.S.A. The corporate U.S.A. is controlled by the so-called federal government of the U.S.A. which is a corporation, being a legal fiction, a counterfeit of lawful government, and Satan's deception.
Let's look for example at the so-called organic nation of the Commonwealth of Australia. The corporate counterpart (counterfeit) is the COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA. It is even registered as a corporate entity under the U.S.A. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, registration number 0000805157. Over here on the continent commonly known as Australia, there is even a corporation number for 'THE QUEEN'.

RabbiKnife
May 12th 2011, 01:19 PM
I've been practicing law for years. So yeah, I know skubalon when I read it.

I'll leave you to your fantasies and conspiracy theories, as there is no ability to have a coherent conversation here, I am quite certain.

cactusjack
May 12th 2011, 01:40 PM
Caleb said "This is about kings and princes of Israel. Israel was the house of the Lord "
Yes this was written to Israel, and as you put it, the house of the Lord. God's line of authority applies to the us gentiles now as well.

cactusjack
May 12th 2011, 01:51 PM
Thanks for you comment, RabbiKnife.

TomH
May 12th 2011, 02:12 PM
Caleb said "This is about kings and princes of Israel. Israel was the house of the Lord "
Yes this was written to Israel, and as you put it, the house of the Lord. God's line of authority applies to the us gentiles now as well.


Let me put a page mark here, so everyone knows where "muddying the waters" begins.

Butch5
May 12th 2011, 09:46 PM
Not all governments and/or kings are ordained/set-up by God. See Hosea 8:4 "They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: ....."
Hitler as a man, and a dictator, was still under the structure of the German so-called government, which was a body-politic/corporate-type-entity/legal-fiction.
There are other verses which must be examined with Romans 13:1-7, which are seldom touched upon by most pastors.
Romans 13:1-7 applies to authorities ie. people in authority. Verse 3 reads ‘rulers’ and verse 4 reads ‘he’. It does not apply to the so-called governments of the U.S.A. or COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA or GERMANY (Capital letters intended) for example. Romans 13:1-7 doesn’t even use the word ‘government. The so-called governments are corporations, being legal fictions. You can look up ‘legal fiction’ in Bouvier’s or Black’s ‘law’ dictionaries etc. A legal fiction only exists on paper and in the mind of man. One can not feel, see, smell, taste or hear a legal fiction. Corporations were invented to give various entities legal perpetuity. Before these so-called governments became corporations, they were still bodies-politic, being a corporate-type entity, being a legal fiction. God does not deal with legal fictions within His line of authority. Legal fictions are the invention of man. Even if you wish to comment on the interpretation of the original Greek per the words ‘rulers’ & ‘he’ in verses 3 & 4, it does not matter, as God does not recognise legal fictions.
All U.S.A. so-called governments, for example, are ALL corporations, and the so-called laws are actually statutes. Statutes are merely the rules for a society. Laws are the lawful rules for a society. For the rules to be lawful, they must be founded on God’s laws, Godly common law principles and a lawful government. The so-called laws in the U.S.A. fail on all three of these conditions, similarly as here on the continent commonly known as Australia.
There is no controversy whatsoever with Romans 13:1-7 when one fully comprehends the structure of so-called government.


God does not recognise legal fictions.

Got Scripture or is this just an opinion?

Butch5
May 12th 2011, 09:54 PM
Which parts, RollTide21, due you consider 'Outstanding' in response to a posting by Butch5?
Butch5 stated "We are citizens of another kingdom, we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world. Jesus said my kingdom is not of this world."
Does Butch5 have a driver's license, a marriage certificate, a (so-called) government issued birth certificate? Does he pay taxes? Does he use (so-called) government identification when traveling on a plane? Does he have a bank account? Does he have any other types of express contracts with the so-called governments? Does he have any implied/adhesive ('sticky') contracts with the so-called governments? If he has any of these then he is obviously ignorant or deceived to comment "we are not citizens of the kingdoms of this world".
Butch5 asked "how does a Christian follow Christ and be involved in another kingdom?" and "How can we be involved with an earthly government, since none follow the laws of Christ?" and he commented "we are not to be of this world."
If he has any express or implied contracts with the so-called governments, then he is of this world, and is involved with earthly kingdoms. A contract can simply be defined as an interaction between parties where there is an offer by one party, then acceptance by the other party. It is through these express & implied contracts which gives the courts of these so-called governments jurisdiction over his actions.

So taking your definition to the extreme means I am of this world? Simply obeying the laws of the land makes me a citizen? This sounds to me like justification. Jesus said to pay taxes, to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and He also said His disciples, who gave to ceasar were not of this world. I'll take Jesus' definition rather than the one you've given.

Caleb
May 12th 2011, 11:10 PM
Caleb said "This is about kings and princes of Israel. Israel was the house of the Lord "
Yes this was written to Israel, and as you put it, the house of the Lord. God's line of authority applies to the us gentiles now as well.

And we who belong to Christ are now also of the commonwealth of Israel. There is only One King of the Holy Nation, and the government is upon His shoulders.

WELL
May 14th 2011, 03:33 PM
I'm sure you guys have discussed this before, but I'm having trouble with Romans 13:1-7...

So...I need help answering the following:

1.) God put Hitler in charge? Would it have been wrong for a German citizen to assassinate Hitler?

2.) Was the American Revolution an un-Christian rebellion against God since it was a secessionist movement against a government that was established by God?

3.) Is there any just time that people can overthrow a government?

4.) We must accept a government that supports abortions? Can we vote against it?

5.) Can we ever criticize the government?

6.) Was Paul simply speaking out against anarchy and would accept a government takeover or the replacement of one government with another (American Revolution)?

thanks for your help


1.) God put Hitler in charge? Would it have been wrong for a German citizen to assassinate Hitler?

God allowed Hitler and Churchill and Bush to be in some sort of power. God has the final say as to how much they can use their power,but God is the Ultimate Ruler, and the King of Kings.

To kill our enemies is not to love them,so I'd say killing our enemies is wrong.

2.) Was the American Revolution an un-Christian rebellion against God since it was a secessionist movement against a government that was established by God?

In a sense the American Revolution was wrong in that anything is wrong if it encourages killing in the flesh.

3.) Is there any just time that people can overthrow a government?

Any kind of revolt that involves kiliing instead of loving is anti-Christ and cannot be called Christian.

4.) We must accept a government that supports abortions? Can we vote against it?

We can stand up in voicing our opinions , but killing in war like manner is not ever encouraged in the teachings of the gospels.

5.) Can we ever criticize the government?

We can criticize, but always better to preach the good news, and show the BETTER way.

6.) Was Paul simply speaking out against anarchy and would accept a government takeover or the replacement of one government with another (American Revolution)?

In a more complete understanding of Paul's teaching, he was saying ;'...be subject...' for conscience sake. Ones conscience cannot be at peace if one has killed another because the other differed in opinion. The way of the gospel is to bring about change through the love of Christ, any other way would be of the flesh. The gospel is the solution for a dying and corrupt world.

WELL
May 14th 2011, 03:46 PM
I think that Germans who supported Hitler were sinning, just because they were also supporting all of the autrocities he committed.

I agree with this sentence above. I think anyone who supports killing in war also is sinning, weather his name begins with H or Z.

janitor
May 14th 2011, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by TheAnswer99
I'm sure you guys have discussed this before, but I'm having trouble with Romans 13:1-7...
I think it might be important to remember that Paul stated:

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.....For he is the minister of God to thee for good. Ro.13:3,4

I think all Paul was saying is that Christians should obey the laws of government, because government was instituted by God to protect you against lawbreakers. Of course, governments become corrupt and in cases like that, we should obey God rather than man.

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Ac.5:29

Slug1
May 14th 2011, 05:34 PM
I agree with this sentence above. I think anyone who supports killing in war also is sinning, weather his name begins with H or Z.How can you say this and support this with scripture.

Now if you said, if anyone murders people and for those who support murder... they are also sinning, then I can understand you. That is why Equipped_4_Love can make the statement they made... Hitler was MURDERING people. On top of that, those he chose to MURDER are God's chosen people.

God spun up the Ministers of God and set them on a footing to put an end to this MURDERING. That footing to end Hitlers murdering of the Jews is called... WAR.

So, to say that killing in war is wrong... well, you're saying God is wrong. All those in the war to stop Hitler's murdering are only being obedient to God's will and His use of those that HE calls His... Ministers of God.

Good to see ya around the board again WELL... God Bless you!

rom826
May 14th 2011, 08:06 PM
I think it might be important to remember that Paul stated:

"For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil.....For he is the minister of God to thee for good. Ro.13:3,4

I think all Paul was saying is that Christians should obey the laws of government, because government was instituted by God to protect you against lawbreakers. Of course, governments become corrupt and in cases like that, we should obey God rather than man.

"Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men." Ac.5:29

Absolutely. We are to obey the laws of the land to the point where those laws do not contridict the commandments of God. Should any nation make a law forbidding the preaching of the gospel or worshipping God, we are not under obligation to obey that nation's law. God's commandment supercede. The prophet Daniel did not obey his government leaders when they told him he was not allowed to worship God.

aftertheflood
May 14th 2011, 08:32 PM
Well, revolt is definitely not an option, but criticism is. I don't recall the Bible saying anything against criticising the government.

If you live in a particular nation, you are pretty much bound to accept the system that governs it -- but that doesn't mean that you have to approve of everything that it does. If moral injustice is taking place, I do believe that it's our duty as Christians to speak up, and make our objections known....even try to change things as best we can, within the confines of the law.

As far as Hitler is concerned -- that's sort of a tough one. On the one hand, murder is a sin, but on the other hand, Hitler spearheaded a murderous regime....and against God's chosen people, even. Scripture says nothing against killing in warfare, and since Hitler was commander-in-chief of the Nazi army, I suppose that he was fair game. I think that the Scriptural thing for a German to do would be to move out of the country, and join the "other side." That way, the person is no longer under that rulership.

I think that Germans who supported Hitler were sinning, just because they were also supporting all of the autrocities he committed. The Bible tells us that, if any government tries to force us to go against God, then defiance is justified.

I would disagree with the idea that revolt is not an option. As it is the overarching concept in our founding and in our founding documents it can be argued that to revolt is in fact something we are authorized to do and is therefore not contrary to the passage cited. And that we are in truth actually called to rebel should the government leave the principles of the founding documents and become tyrannical!

WELL
May 15th 2011, 03:43 PM
How can you say this and support this with scripture.




Hi Slug.



Support from scripture regarding my statement;"I think anyone who supports killing in war also is sinning..."

1. Jesus commands;"Love your enemies..."

If you believe loving someone who is fighting for another government, is to kill them,I believe this is sinful.

2.Paul in Rom13 instructs;"Love does no ill to his neighbour..."

As Jesus explains, your neighbour is the one in need, and we are to do like wise , following the example of the good Samaritan. If we obey Jesus in our following the example of the good Samaritan then killing in war is definatly not following an option.

However, if one believes killing equals loving, then I can only encourage them to spend time at the Saviour's feet, as He is the only One Who can teach us how to love.

WELL
May 15th 2011, 03:50 PM
Interesting point made by Slug about the Jews being the people of God. In todays context,Christians are fighting against Christians in war. People of God fighting a war against People of God. It is clear in my mind that God would not lead any of His people to do this. Yes there were Christians fighting in both Hitler's Army and Churchill's Army.

Slug1
May 15th 2011, 09:06 PM
Hi Slug.



Support from scripture regarding my statement;"I think anyone who supports killing in war also is sinning..."

1. Jesus commands;"Love your enemies..."

If you believe loving someone who is fighting for another government, is to kill them,I believe this is sinful.

2.Paul in Rom13 instructs;"Love does no ill to his neighbour..."

As Jesus explains, your neighbour is the one in need, and we are to do like wise , following the example of the good Samaritan. If we obey Jesus in our following the example of the good Samaritan then killing in war is definatly not following an option.

However, if one believes killing equals loving, then I can only encourage them to spend time at the Saviour's feet, as He is the only One Who can teach us how to love.We have to view this from God's perspective... will He allow "man" to kill off His people? Or will He utilize man to stop those who are doing murder? Or at that time... murdering the Jews?

We always have to look at war from God's perspective. The character of God has to always be in the proper interpretation of any scripture.

You say killing is wrong... well, this statement is completely in OPPOSITION to the character of God because He freely uses killing as a means to see HIS WILL accomplished.

You can throw the "love your enemy" in this thread all day long but how does your interpretation align with the character or the NATURE of God and how does your interpretation stand up against all other scriptures in context?

You see, when God uses His Ministers of God to bring His wrath to the evil doer... your interpretation isn't gonna stop God from using His Minister's of God because you're out there on the battlefield yelling... STOP, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES!

WELL
May 21st 2011, 01:07 PM
We have to view this from God's perspective

Yes, I agree,we need to view this from God's perspective. God's perspective for us to obey is recorded in the New Testament, and He tells us to love our enemies in Matt 5, and Luke 6. Now, I believe if any disobey the command to love their enemy, they disobey God.

WELL
May 21st 2011, 01:11 PM
will He allow "man" to kill off His people? Or will He utilize man to stop those who are doing murder? Or at that time... murdering the Jews?


It is CLEAR that God has through the ages that God allowed man to kill "off" His people. Even in the book of Rev, we are taught that this does and will occur.

I beleive it is error to think God cannot protect His own people. God is far stronger than any automatic or nuclear weapon.

Let's not underestimate Him!

Slug1
May 21st 2011, 01:15 PM
It is CLEAR that God has through the ages that God allowed man to kill "off" His people. Even in the book of Rev, we are taught that this does and will occur.

I beleive it is error to think God cannot protect His own people. God is far stronger than any automatic or nuclear weapon.

Let's not underestimate Him!And when He's doing this through His Minister's of God... you are constantly saying they are doing wrong though.

WELL
May 21st 2011, 01:18 PM
You say killing is wrong... well, this statement is completely in OPPOSITION to the character of God because He freely uses killing as a means to see HIS WILL accomplished.


Ah ha. God uses killing. Yes He does. He know who to kill, and exactly how, but we are told to love. Love does no harm to his neighbour,[see Rom13], so where does He command us to stop loving and go and kill. He doesn't. No where in the New Testament is the Christian commanded to stop loving, and start killing

WELL
May 21st 2011, 01:35 PM
And when He's doing this through His Minister's of God... you are constantly saying they are doing wrong though.

No where in the New Testament is the Christian commanded to stop loving, and start killing.

Question 1.
As we all know , we are commanded to love throught the New Testament, do you agree?

Question 2.
Are we told in Rom 13 that "Love does no ill to their neighbour"?

Question 3.
Do you believe that in some situations in life we as Christians,or any Christian minister can stop loving?

Slug1
May 21st 2011, 01:50 PM
No where in the New Testament is the Christian commanded to stop loving, and start killing.

Question 1.
As we all know , we are commanded to love throught the New Testament, do you agree?

Question 2.
Are we told in Rom 13 that "Love does no ill to their neighbour"?

Question 3.
Do you believe that in some situations in life we as Christians,or any Christian minister can stop loving?

The questions should be to seek Gods truth and HIS meaning. If God says Love your enemy and the true meaning of this means what you say and then, God can use man to bring His wrath and slay the enemy like He's done throughout the Bible and continues today and as we read in the Bible, He'll do in the future... don't ya think your understanding may not be aligned with God's truth?

WELL
May 21st 2011, 02:08 PM
As the reader of this thread, Slug avoids answering the questions above.
Love is the truth. Love is what we are commanded to obey. Love is the way you can see weather if someone is a Christian or not.
If my understanding of the command of God to love in the New Testament is wrong to some, maybe you can look again, and ask yourself,
did Jesus while He lived in the flesh leave us an example,or not? Did He kill anyone in the flesh?

Slug1
May 21st 2011, 04:15 PM
As the reader of this thread, Slug avoids answering the questions above.
Love is the truth. Love is what we are commanded to obey. Love is the way you can see weather if someone is a Christian or not.
If my understanding of the command of God to love in the New Testament is wrong to some, maybe you can look again, and ask yourself,
did Jesus while He lived in the flesh leave us an example,or not? Did He kill anyone in the flesh?I'm not avoiding the questions Well, I've answered them in past threads.

What you show in these topics is that you want to only believe what you want to believe.

You do know that in Mt5 and Lk 6 the message was what to do concerning Roman soldiers... do you recall that at all.

You see... you only understand the character of God based on a 3 year period of time and ignore the rest of the Bible.

WELL
May 22nd 2011, 06:31 AM
I'm not avoiding the questions Well, I've answered them in past threads.


Slug,if you are not avoiding, them please answer for all of us to see. There are a whole lot of new readers in here who need to weigh what you say, and what I say in the light of the truth found in the New Testament. I have read in 1 John 1, that the way to see if someone is a Christian is if they love. So far, as I've seen from your teaching, it is not based on Love, so that's why I need you to answer the questions.

Copy and paste for us if you like.

God bless

Slug1
May 22nd 2011, 11:30 AM
Slug,if you are not avoiding, them please answer for all of us to see. There are a whole lot of new readers in here who need to weigh what you say, and what I say in the light of the truth found in the New Testament. I have read in 1 John 1, that the way to see if someone is a Christian is if they love. So far, as I've seen from your teaching, it is not based on Love, so that's why I need you to answer the questions.

Copy and paste for us if you like.

God bless

Copy/Paste? Ok... :lol:

There is an age old question concerning the present day Christian who serves in any position that may require them to kill. So for all personnel who have, are presently or will serve in the military, we’re going to address this question.

We have all heard that killing is wrong but when you really read the Bible in context, is killing wrong? God never said that killing is wrong. Sure, He’s our sovereign Lord and above reproach but He is not a God of, ‘do as I say, not as I do’ either.

God has never said that killing is wrong. God said that murder is wrong. So, we ask that age old question about killing in war and in reading the Bible, the answer is no. God’s command is, “Thou Shalt Not Murder” and this has nothing to do with killing.

Killing is a means that God utilizes to ensure that His will is done when His will reaches such an extreme. Our Lord has even whiped out the entire human race except for only Noah and his family, a total of 8 humans (Genesis 7:13-16). He has utilized few men to kill off vast armies (Judges 7:7), man has been ordered to kill entire cities to include all the livestock even (Joshua 6:2 and 21). Through Samson, God has enabled a man to kill with supernatural strength (Judges 14:6, 19 and Judges 15:14-15). Finally, when Jesus returns in glory and physically is on the earth He will kill all of those who have taken the mark of the beast (Revelation 19:21).

By these few examples, can anyone say that God is instructing that killing is wrong?

David the King wrote: “blessed be the Lord my rock, Who trains my hands for war, and my fingers for battle” (Psalm 144:1) Here David is giving thanks, praise, and acknowledgment to God that he is the one who has prepared David for the battle that he (David) must fight.

I have been asked many times to produce scripture that informs us that killing is “OK”. Well, here is my honest answer based on all I have read in the Bible, there is no need for any scripture informing us that killing is OK! In context of the Bible and by the many examples we are provided throughout the Old Testament and the New Testament, its clear and understood that killing is necessary as God wills. Even when a man and his wife lies to the Holy Spirit, God has killed over such an offense (Acts 5:3-5, 9-10).

We need to understand that throughout history God has used war and the warrior to complete His perfect plan, and that God has used his people in this endeavor. War is a horrible thing, yet it is a tool that God uses in this fallen, broken, and imperfect world. Isn’t it interesting that the first action taken (by God’s command) when the Hebrews entered the Promised Land was to attack and take Jericho by the sword?

God had told them that He (God) had, “given them the city”, yet God told them to attack.

In the New Covenant, the men and women that He will use to accomplish this specific task of His will, are called Ministers of God. This position will need to be filled by obedient and faithful servants of God until He sends His Son, Jesus back to the earth. Then all those who are presently His Ministers of God, will be out of a job. Jesus will bring His wrath to the evil doer Himself and will not be working through man to do this any longer.

Now there will be some who say: “The NT tells Christians to love their enemies, to do good to them that persecute you, etc.” and that is certainly true. But these things were told to us by our Lord as a model of individual reaction to those who hate us, for in those times of retribution and revenge for insult and affront were the order of the day.

But the Lord has never either denied us the right to self-defense or the defense of our families, our homes, our way of life.

Thou Shalt Not Murder, it is not about killing, it is about doing God’s will, where killing is necessary.

WELL
May 22nd 2011, 07:46 PM
I'm not avoiding the questions Well,

You see... you only understand the character of God based on a 3 year period of time and ignore the rest of the Bible.

Slug, please pay attention,others are reading in here, and it stands out fairly strongly that you do not even read the questions, and so far have not answered one of them.

By you saying ;"...you only understand the character of God based on a 3 year period of time and ignore the rest of the Bible." is a clear indication that you have not read what I have written, as in Question 2 from my post 42, I have quoted from Rom 13, see below.

So, let's try again Slug, I have copied and pasted it out for you and other readers to read and understand. Try and answer, there are only three.

Post 42

"No where in the New Testament is the Christian commanded to stop loving, and start killing.

Question 1.
As we all know , we are commanded to love throught the New Testament, do you agree?

Question 2.
Are we told in Rom 13 that "Love does no ill to their neighbour"?

Question 3.
Do you believe that in some situations in life we as Christians,or any Christian minister can stop loving?"

It is very important that we refer to scripture in the New Covenant, as there is a HUGE difference between the covenants, as often they have DIFFERENT commandments! The Old commanded killing in war. The New comands only LOVE to all people all the time.

If you would like to live by the Old covenant commands, isn't it better then to call yourself a Jew, and not a follower of Christ?

Michael Snow
May 23rd 2011, 03:25 AM
The first task, before seeking to apply verses, is to understand them in context. If you seek understanding about the context of "Romans 13," I think you will be quite amazed.

Rom13

Key to Understanding: Historical Context

586 BC Solomon’s Temple destroyed

After the Babylonian captivity ended, Judea survived under the succeeding Empires.

323 BC Death of Alexander the Great. Kingdom divided among the generals.
Judea comes under the Ptolemies, who also rule Eygpt
198 BC Judea annexed by the Seleucids, under Antiochus III, who rules Syria

During this period, Jews under no government edicts to change customs
[though many fell under the spell of the Hellenistic spirit of the times].
Antiochus strengthened the High Priesthood, made Torah official law for Jews
And exempted Jews from taxes.

Judea was still a theocratic/Temple State.

Internal strife precipitated a crisis under the next king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. High Priestly faction, the House of Zaddock, was pro-Ptolemaic.
Another artistocratic family, the Tobiads, was pro-Seleucid.

Complaints against High Priest Onias III led to removal. Office was sold to his brother, Jason, who received permission from Antiochus “to transform Jerusalem into a Greek polis…”
“For the first time in Jewish History, the office of high priest had changed from heritage to a privileged position…” to be bought.

Later, Jason refused to surrender that office. Civil war broke out. Besides the political factions, the scribal class, to whom the common people looked, produced the Hassidim who attacked Jews who were Hellenizers.

168 BC Antiochus Intervenes

This led to the events described in Maccabees: Desecration of the Temple; the Abomination of Desolation.

This then led to Revolt of the Maccabees, joined by the Hassidim

164 BC “On December 25…Temple was purified and rededicated to Yahweh.”
Annual observance—Hanukkah, Festival of Lights

Judea gains autonomy. Simon, one of the Maccabees, rules from 140-135. Holds Offices of High Priest [first of the Hasmonean Dynasty], Ethnarch, military and civil Governor.

Intervening Years till reign of Herod.
Battles continue between factions and enemies.

63 BC Pompey Captures Jerusalem.

Antipater, father of Herod, honored by Julius Caesar.

40 BC After Rome’s Civil War, under Octavian Caesar, Antony and Roman Senate confer title on Herod: “King of the Jews”

4 BC Death of Herod The Great

Revolts put down
Kingdom divided among sons
Archelaus rules over Judea…strife continues

Jewish delegation to Rome: complaints about Archelaus’ rule; asks for Roman rule

AD 6 Archelaus’ rule ends. Judea Becomes Roman Province.

Change in government calls for census—taken for purpose of taxation.
To devout Jews, this was a symbol of subjugation to Rome, foreign, pagan power

Judas the Galilean [Acts 5:37], with Zadock the Pharisee, leads Revolt

Judas recruits his band around Sepphoris, the capitol [a short distance from Nazareth]

Three Roman Legions under Varus, crush revolt.

2000 Jews Crucified [Josephus, Ant.17:295]

[From this period until the outbreak of the final Jewish War in AD 66, Zealots and assassins would continue to foment rebellion and violent outbreaks. Josephus, The Jewish War, is great background reading for understanding NT times.]

c. AD 29 “Barrabbas had been imprisoned with the insurrectionists who had committed murder in the insurrection.” [Mark 15]

AD 46-48 Insurrections: Two Sons of Judas the Galilean executed by Rome

c.AD 49 Edict of Claudius

Jews expelled from Rome for disturbances [Acts 18:2]

AD 54 Claudius Dies
Jews begin return to Rome

AD 57 Paul Writes Letter to Romans

[AD 66 Jewish War begins. Temple Destroyed in 70]



New Testament Had NO Chapter numbers for over 1000 years

Read IN CONTEXT: [Rom 12-13]

I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect…

Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position. Do not be conceited.
17Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. 18If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay,"says the Lord. 20On the contrary:
"If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink.
In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." 21Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For 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 he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

cactusjack
May 24th 2011, 04:38 AM
As mentioned earlier, in regards to governments being firstly bodies corporate, then corporations, both of which are legal fictions, I stated "God does not deal with legal fictions within His line of authority. Legal fictions are the invention of man." and "God does not recognize legal fictions."
Butch5 asked "Got Scripture or is this just an opinion?"
I'm not sure why anyone would ask for scripture, because a legal fiction is a fiction, where a fiction is an imaginative creation or a pretense. God is a God of truth, not fiction. Truth is an attribute of God. Here are some scriptures anyway: Deuteronomy 32:4, Psalm 19:9, Psalm 33:4 etc.
Legal fictions can refer to entities (eg. bodies politic, corporations etc.), a process, a rule, a statement or a belief.
With reference to a process, rule, statement or belief, a legal fiction is something assumed or presumed (or an opinion) in statute and court to be fact irrespective of the truth or accuracy of that assumption or presumption (or opinion). In this regard, a legal fiction can be associated with 'color of law'.
Oran's Dictionary of Law for 'legal fiction' reads "An assumption that something that is (or may be) false or nonexistant is true or real. Legal fictions are assumed or invented to help do justice. ..."
Judges use legal fictions regularly which allows them to call the truth a lie, and a lie the truth (the doctrine of pretending).
Black's Law Dictionary, 1979, for 'Color of Law' reads "The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal right. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under 'color of law'."
Regarding legal fiction entities, Blackstone’s ‘Commentaries on the Laws of England’ (1765 - 1769) explains the principles of corporations etc. nicely, and clearer than 'law' dictionaries. Snippets from Book 1, Ch.18 reads (my emphasis in ALL-CAPITALS) “it has been found necessary, when it is for the advantage of the public to have any particular rights kept on foot & continued, to constitute ARTIFICIAL PERSONS, who may maintain a PERPETUAL succession, & enjoy a kind of LEGAL IMMORTALITY. …. These artificial persons are called BODIES POLITIC, BODIES CORPORATE, or CORPORATIONS: … in order to preserve entire & for ever those rights & immunities, which, if they were granted only to those individuals of which the body corporate is composed, would upon their death be utterly lost & extinct. …. But our laws have considerably refined & improved upon the INVENTION, according to the usual genius of the English nation: particularly with regard to SOLE CORPORATIONS, .... "
Again, the entities of COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA and STATE OF QUEENSLAND, for example, are corporations.
The 'Australian' contact for dealing with the corporate COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA is the international 'law' firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, at Level 13, 131 Macquarie Street, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, ph. (02)92536000.
Check out 'your' statutes and cases for clues.
View Title 28, Part 6, Ch. 176, Subch. A, Sect. 3002, clause 15 which reads " “United States” means - (A) a Federal corporation; (B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or (C) an instrumentality of the United States.
View U.S. Supreme Court case, STOUTENBURGH v. HENNICK, 129 U.S. 141 (1889), P. 129 which reads (my emphasis in ALL-CAPITALS) " Sections 1 & 18 of the Act of Congress of February 21, 1871, entitled "An act to provide a government for the District of Columbia," 16 Stat. 419, are as follows: "SEC 1. That all that part of the territory of the United States included within the limits of the District of Columbia be, and the same is hereby, created into a government by the name of the District of Columbia, by which name it is hereby constituted a BODY CORPORATE for municipal purposes, ........ "
It's the same here as over there - if one was to take the so-called Queensland government to court, the defendant would be listed as 'STATE OF QUEENSLAND', and not the ministers/politicians which most people refer to as 'those in authority'.

cactusjack
May 24th 2011, 04:38 AM
Earlier on, Butch5 said "So taking your definition to the extreme means I am of this world? Simply obeying the laws of the land makes me a citizen? This sounds to me like justification. Jesus said to pay taxes, to give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and He also said His disciples, who gave to ceasar were not of this world. I'll take Jesus' definition rather than the one you've given."
I'm not sure what Butch5's definition of 'citizen' is.
Some common definitions of 'citizen' are "A member of a state or nation, as distinguished from a foreigner; a person who owes loyalty & allegiance to a government, and who, because of his/her birth certificate or naturalization is entitled to protection by the government; an inhabitant of a city or town, especially one entitled to its privileges; a person who is entitled to enjoy all of the legal rights & privileges granted by a state to the people comprising its constituency, and is obligated to obey its laws and to fulfil his/her duties as called upon."
It only takes someone to recognise (accept as valid) 'their' so-called government issued birth certificate, plus voluntarily create one specific express contract (eg. apply for a driver's license or marriage certificate, or register with some so-called government department) with the so-called government to be considered a citizen. All other aspects such as having so-called government
identification, 'obeying the 'laws' of the land' etc. merely confirm the role of citizen.
Romans 12:2 warns "And be not conformed to this world: ....". It is not 'my definition to the extreme' as Butch5 says, that would make someone of the world. People, including most Christians, have become of the world because of their recognition of the so-called governments (Federal and state) and because of their subsequent voluntary express and implied/adhesive ('sticky') contracts with these corporate counterfeit governments.
Satan has deceived most Christians into conforming to this world by seducing them to join his kingdom. This joinder is accomplished by the sorceries (skilful seduction & influence) of his merchants. Rev. 18:23 reads "........ for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived." A merchant is one who is involved in contracts via commerce and trade.
Also check out 'your' U.C.C. (Uniform commercial code) - it's ALL and totally commercial.
Christians conforming to this world, or being of the world (see John 17:9-14), has occurred because of a lack of knowledge, a blind patriotic spirit (for one's 'nation'), the lure of benefits ('carrots sticks') supplied by so-called governments, and the erroneous 'serial' teachings by pastors on Romans 13:1-7 & Titus 3:9.
Too many people, including Christians, look to the state (so-called governments) as their nanny or benefactor, because of the many benefits issued by the state. Luke 22:25-26 reads "And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye [shall] not [be] so: ....."
Regarding taxes, I don't pay taxes any more; nor do I receive any benefits from the so-called governments, nor do I drive an automobile anymore.
If someone has contracts with Caesar's kingdom, then he is contractually bound (obliged) as one of Caesar's citizens to pay Caesar's taxes.

cactusjack
May 24th 2011, 04:39 AM
Butterworth's Concise Australian Legal Dictionary, 2004 for 'legal fiction' reads "An assumption that purports to or does conceal, alter, or modify a fact or rule of law. The European settlement in Australia in 1788 as terra nullius (empty land) was a legal fiction as it suppressed the fact that the land was inhabited and administered by the Aboriginal peoples; Mabo v Queensland (No 2) (1992)...".
I do not recognise the so-called governments over here because of their counterfeit corporate structure; nor do I recognise these entities because I am an adopted member of the suveran (sovereign) Dalungbara (ab)Original Tribe/Nation/People. Before the murders of almost all of our people in the mid 1800's by the invading British soldiers & people and following settlers, we always had an organic authority known as a bora where the Elders literally sat (seat of authority) to administer tribal laws and judge on various matters. The bora, being the group of Elders in authority, were all men.
Suppose there were 8 Elders in bora/authority, that would make it 8 entities governing and judging matters; then just suppose if it was possible, suppose that some British, or 'western' or 'white' structure was added, then the bora would consist of 9 entities, with the 9th. entity being a body politic ie. a legal fiction, called say the Dalungbara government. Then, if it was possible to sue the Dalungbara government, a tribal member would be suing this 9th. entity, and not the Elders. This is how the 'Australian' and 'U.S.A.' 'white' so-called governments operate - they are ALL legal fiction entities.
There is a maxim of law which reads "You ought to know with whom you deal." A maxim is defined as an expression of an absolute truth or principle; and a maxim of law is an established principle or proposition - a principle of law universally admitted, as being just and constant with reason. Many maxims of law are founded on scripture.
As Satan is the 'god' of this world, it is most reasonable that we should be aware of his deceptions and counterfeits, and whom or what we are dealing with in every day life. It is not enough to merely assume that the so-called governments and statutes are lawful and ordained by God.
Understanding 'statutes' as opposed to 'laws', 'legal' as opposed to 'lawful', 'power' as opposed to 'authority', 'persons' as opposed to 'people', legal-fictions, color of law, & cestui que trusts are a key to understanding Satan's more subtle deceptions, illusions and counterfeits.
Don't expect any real revelations from your average pastor about Romans 13:1-7. They know very little about law and statutes etc. It would be similar to listening to an electrician giving a lecture on finance. Unfortunately very few pastors can accept even the simplest & most obvious truth if it would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in sharing with fellow pastors, have proudly preached to congregations, and have woven thread by thread into the fabric of their lives.

Michael Snow
May 25th 2011, 02:52 AM
...
Don't expect any real revelations from your average pastor about Romans 13:1-7. They know very little about law and statutes etc....

What pastors need is to understand the historical and textual context. Your knowledge of 'law and statutes' is superfluous.

Your Advert here


Hosted by Webnet77