Posted on 03/01/2005 8:09:47 AM PST by Right Wing It
Why?
Nothing about government here.
13:1 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.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
13:3 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:
13:4 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.
13:5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
13:6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
13:7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
13:9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
13:10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
13:11 And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
13:12 The night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
13:14 But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof.
That may have been the interpretation at the time. We no longer live a world where most people believe that their rulers are ordained by God. Do you really think God wants our souls to be subject to the higher powers of government? Our souls are only subject to the higher powers of God.
Shall we consider the government that legalizes child murder to be ordained by God?
Yeesh. And you accused me of having a "loose" interpretation? "Most people" get to decide what applies to us today and what doesn't? How are the world's rulers any different today than they were in the 1st Century? Do you think those Christians Paul was writing to in 1st Century Rome were living under godly rulers? Nero?!
Do you really think God wants our souls to be subject to the higher powers of government?
I believe His word is every bit as much for us today as it was for the early church.
Our souls are only subject to the higher powers of God.
None of the earthly powers would have any power at all unless it were given to them by God. True then. True now. True always.
Wow.
He could certainly stop it yesterday if He wants to.
His thoughts are not our thoughts. Pain and suffering here last but an instant. Eternity is forever.
That's beside the point.
I refuse to trust as Godly a government that legalizes and even funds child murder.
On the contrary, that is the point.
I refuse to trust as Godly a government that legalizes and even funds child murder.
Ours is certainly no less godly than the government ruling over the people to whom Paul sent that letter.
No it's not.
It was my point. No matter who He puts over us on this earth, we can trust God is sovereign. He has not abandoned us. He's not sitting off in the distance just wishing things would have turned out differently.
So, what was your point? Do you also say Romans 13 was somehow more applicable to those under Nero's rule than it is to us? If you don't believe the Bible is the inerrant and unchanging word of the living God for all times, just say so and I'll be happy to go away.
I seemed like you were trying to redefine pro-life. It's not a word with intrinsic meaning but a new label attached to abortion. Recently it has migrated to euthenasia but it is not a word that is stretched to death penalty. That is a whole different issue.
I think most people would also apply it to infanticide. Maybe I just view it differently as a Catholic.
Infanticide?
I'm not aware of much infanticide going on other than abortion.
I'm not sure you guys are ever going to agree on this issue. Maybe that is the point of sites like these, but I think it is a sure sign of the death of compromise, and if you read above, I support a culture of life. What good does it do a baby to be born if they are not going to be fed and loved.
So far it is just one of those necessary definition discussions. A lot of FR arguments are over 2 different definitions of the same word.
I thought about that. Atleast no one would try and call that something other than murder. That is what drives all of us prolifers crazy about abortion is the disagreement as to whether a baby is being killed or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.