PDA

View Full Version : Income Tax and Christianity




RileyE104
06-07-2011, 07:24 PM
I got some good responses from the Chat, but I was wondering what the rest of you think about this?


This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. ~ Romans 13:6

I ran into it while arguing with someone about why the income tax = redistribution of wealth and therefore theft.


My main points against it were that 1) The Bible is not the law of the land, The Constitution is and that 2) the idea is not an American or Free Market value but instead a Socialist value called for in the Communist Manifesto.

truthdivides
06-07-2011, 08:54 PM
That verse talks broadly about taxes. It doesn't specify the income tax. There are plenty of other taxes to pay for the government to run what it needs to. The income tax could be eliminated and people could still live according to that verse.

Even more, many people say America was founded as a Christian nation and this is what bring the Bible into so many debates. The Founders didn't see a need for an income tax when things began. It was added later as fewer Americans claimed Christianity as their belief.

heavenlyboy34
06-07-2011, 09:34 PM
Chuck Baldwin once wrote a great response to the Romans 13 argument.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 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: 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. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.
Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority – even civil authority – is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.

RileyE104
06-07-2011, 09:51 PM
That verse talks broadly about taxes. It doesn't specify the income tax. There are plenty of other taxes to pay for the government to run what it needs to. The income tax could be eliminated and people could still live according to that verse.

Even more, many people say America was founded as a Christian nation and this is what bring the Bible into so many debates. The Founders didn't see a need for an income tax when things began. It was added later as fewer Americans claimed Christianity as their belief.

I agree! It took 137 years for the income tax to come about. That's why I pointed out that the idea didn't come from the Bible but instead the Communist Manifesto.

Sola_Fide
06-07-2011, 10:04 PM
Chuck Baldwin once wrote a great response to the Romans 13 argument.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 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: 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. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.
Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority – even civil authority – is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.



Thanks for posting this. Great piece. Any government that is a terror to good works instead of bad works is no longer under divine authority.

A government acting like it owns your wealth and lets you keep some of it (income tax) is a terror to good works. Governments do not own my wealth, God does, and He charges me to be a steward of what He gives me.

heavenlyboy34
06-07-2011, 10:19 PM
Thanks for posting this. Great piece. Any government that is a terror to good works instead of bad works is no longer under divine authority.

A government acting like it owns your wealth and lets you keep some of it (income tax) is a terror to good works. Governments do not own my wealth, God does, and He charges me to be a steward of what He gives me.

n/p. I don't agree with Constitutionalism myself, but Dr Baldwin's arguments against the Omnipotent State are sound scripturally, philosophically, historically, and logically.

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 12:04 PM
The Bible actually says that people should pay their taxes. http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/f/biblepayingtax.htm

Sola_Fide
06-08-2011, 12:18 PM
The Bible actually says that people should pay their taxes. http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/f/biblepayingtax.htm

Please hesitate to speak for the Bible until you understand what it says about tyranny.

heavenlyboy34
06-08-2011, 12:44 PM
Please hesitate to speak for the Bible until you understand what it says about tyranny.
+100000000

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 01:06 PM
In the New Testament, Jesus was not concerned with political issues but rather with spiratual ones. That is the reason behind the "give unto Ceasar" quote. People were too focused on earthly issues.

heavenlyboy34
06-08-2011, 01:16 PM
In the New Testament, Jesus was not concerned with political issues but rather with spiratual ones. That is the reason behind the "give unto Ceasar" quote. People were too focused on earthly issues.
False. The reason for the "give unto Caesar" quote (which is oft misunderstood as a pro-state scripture) is specific to the Roman denarius, which bore the image of Caesar. In this passage, Paul is distinguishing the higher authority of God from arbitrary human authority and diminishing the role of mere human governments which assume powers which rightfully belong to Yahweh-such as the power to confiscate property. Yeshua himself never admonished us to submit to unrighteous authority. Why you conflate Paul's words in Romans 13 with Yesha is illogical and bizarre. Paul never even met Yeshua in person.

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 01:23 PM
Why you conflate Paul's words in Romans 13 with Yesha is illogical and bizarre. Paul never even met Yeshua in person.
Not any statement I have made. The quote is not from Paul or Romans but from Mark:


12:14 When they had come, they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you are honest, and don't defer to anyone; for you aren't partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not? [compare]

12:15 Shall we give, or shall we not give?" But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why do you test me? Bring me a denarius, that I may see it." [compare]

12:16 They brought it. He said to them, "Whose is this image and inscription?" They said to him, "Caesar's." [compare]

12:17 Jesus answered them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." They marveled greatly at him. [compare]

http://www.awitness.org/biblehtm/mr/mr12.htm

But since you raised it, what does Romans 13 say?
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+13&version=NIV

1 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For 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 you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Sola_Fide
06-08-2011, 03:12 PM
Zippyjuan


Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection. Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.


Paul, who wrote Romans directly defied the Roman government and was executed, as were many thousands of Christians who did not burn incencse to Caesar or worship him.

The idea that ANY and ALL governments are under God's authority is a misreading of the Scripture. Tyrannical governments who are a terror to good works and good men are invalid and not under God's authority. A Christian man is under no obligation to submit to a government he can't in good conscience submit to.

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 03:28 PM
So Paul and the Bible are wrong then? And the teaching of Jesus about paying taxes was also wrong? Interesting. I was quoting- not intrepreting- what Scripture says. It is you doing interpreting.

In the previous chapter of Romans (Chapter 12), Paul says to bless those who persecute you.

14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice; mourn with those who mourn. 16 Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people of low position.[c] Do not be conceited.

17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everyone. 18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. 19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,”[d] says the Lord. 20 On 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.”[e]

21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

heavenlyboy34
06-08-2011, 03:34 PM
So Paul and the Bible are wrong then? And the teaching of Jesus about paying taxes was also wrong? Interesting. I was quoting- not intrepreting- what Scripture says. It is you doing interpreting.

In the previous chapter of Romans (Chapter 12), Paul says to bless those who persecute you.
No, your understanding is wrong.

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 03:37 PM
Perhaps you can help me out on that. It seemed pretty clear. Is it not saying you should pay taxes or is it saying you should not pay taxes?

6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

It refers to all authorities- not just certain or "just" ones.

for there is no authority except that which God has established.

If there was no Pharoh in Egypt, Moses would not have had to lead the Jews out of there and into the desert and eventually to Israel- the "promised land". If Jesus was not persecuted and crusified, there would have been no resurection.

heavenlyboy34
06-08-2011, 03:42 PM
Perhaps you can help me out on that. It seemed pretty clear. Is it not saying you should pay taxes or is it saying you should not pay taxes?


It refers to all authorities- not just certain or "just" ones.
AB addressed this in post 13 of this thread.

AFPVet
06-08-2011, 03:42 PM
Perhaps you can help me out on that. It seemed pretty clear. Is it not saying you should pay taxes or is it saying you should not pay taxes?


It refers to all authorities- not just certain or "just" ones.

"This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

This is assuming that the government in this context is in fact 'good'... and that you in fact 'owe' them.

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 03:46 PM
The passage does not specify "good" governments.

Give to everyone what you owe them:

Sola_Fide
06-08-2011, 03:52 PM
Interestingly, Zippyjuan is expressing the same misinterpretation of Scripture that the church has expressed for the past 150+ years. How different the Christians of the founding were than the religiously liberal Christians today. Its sad...

Sola_Fide
06-08-2011, 03:58 PM
The passage does not specify "good" governments.

Zippyjuan, do yourself a favor and read Chuck Baldwin's article in this thread.

Do you think Christians should "submit" to a government who says the magistrate can have sex with your wife before you do (first knight)?

Do you think the apostles and early disciples were wrong in defying the civil government?

Your interpretation is ridiculous. Please educate yourself before you spread what you are spreading.

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 04:00 PM
Ah. So you are the keeper of the real truth. You know and the Church is wrong.

I am not hearing any claims which show that one should not be paying taxes according to the Bible (the issue before us here).

My "intrepretation" is merely to repeat what is written.

AFPVet
06-08-2011, 04:15 PM
The passage does not specify "good" governments. Yes it does... how can a tyrannical government be a servant of God? Explain this to me....

Sola_Fide
06-08-2011, 04:23 PM
Yes it does... how can a tyrannical government be a servant of God? Explain this to me....

In the revealed will of God, it can't be. That is why Zippyjuan's statist interpretation of Romans 13 is so dangerous and in error.

Usually the people who say "Look! The bible says this and it is soooo clear!" are usually the people that are the most eggregiously in error. This is because biblical exegesis is much more difficult than just reading a couple of verses and interpreting them through your statist lenses, for example.

There are many things that go into interpreting Scripture, and the people who just read a few verses out of context and read-in their own erroneous views into the Scriptures turn out to be like the Harold Camping's of the world. They are the idiots who say "Well, this verse says we will 'meet Him in the air'", so therefore "the world is gonna end May 21st!"

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 04:23 PM
how can a tyrannical government be a servant of God? Explain this to me....

One simple one I mentioned earlier. If Jesus was not persecuted, he could not have risen from the dead. He would have been seen as just another preacher or prophet- not as the Son of God.


Yes it does...
Can you show me where it specifies "good" governments? I don't see it.

I guess no further view on the Bible and taxes, eh? Or still looking?

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 04:27 PM
There are many things that go into interpreting Scripture, and the people who just read a few verses out of context abd read-in their own erroneous views into the Scriptures turn out to be like the Harold Camping's of the world. They are the idiots who say "Well, this verse says we will 'meet Him in the air'", so therefore "the world is gonna end May 21st!"

A bit of an exaggeration here I think in the case we are (were?) discussing but yes, there are many who do misquote things and twist what the Bible says. That is why I included the entire chapter and not just a select verse. Taking one verse, you can basically find anything you want. I looked for references on taxation in the Bible and these were the most direct I have found. Nobody has suggested alternative chapters to look at so far- merely indicated that my interpretation is wrong. If anybody does have alternative sections, I would like to take a look at them.

Sola_Fide
06-08-2011, 04:29 PM
Zippy, when I get home, I will post some more stuff in this thread.

Soca Taliban
06-08-2011, 04:34 PM
smdh........you don't even have to get all the way down to Mark or Romans......you can stop at Exodus in the 10 commandments which plainly state....THOU SHALT NOT STEAL...

Zippyjuan
06-08-2011, 04:37 PM
Zippy, when I get home, I will post some more stuff in this thread.

Thank you. I have to leave for now myself.

AFPVet
06-08-2011, 04:41 PM
One simple one I mentioned earlier. If Jesus was not persecuted, he could not have risen from the dead. He would have been seen as just another preacher or prophet- not as the Son of God.

Remember though, the Roman's did not prosecute Jesus, the Jews did. The Romans simply executed punishment.


Can you show me where it specifies "good" governments? I don't see it.

I guess no further view on the Bible and taxes, eh? Or still looking?

Absolutely. Let's begin with Romans 13:1
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3 For 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 you will be commended. 4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.

As highlighted above, authorities who do good... and do not bear the sword for no reason are the 'good authorities'. This is very clear my friend.

robert9712000
06-08-2011, 04:45 PM
All you have to do is just use rational approach to scripture to interpret it correctly. If you read deeper into the bible it says we arent under the law at all .

Galatians 3

1O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?

2This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

3Are ye so foolish? having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?

4Have ye suffered so many things in vain? if it be yet in vain.

5He therefore that ministereth to you the Spirit, and worketh miracles among you, doeth he it by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?

6Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

7Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.

8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

9So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.

10For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

11But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith.

12And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.

13Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

14That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentiles through Jesus Christ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.

15Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto.

16Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.

17And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.

18For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.

19Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.

20Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

21Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.

22But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

23But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

24Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

25But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.

The purpose of all the law was to raise us up to be righteous but if you want to please God it can only be done through faith.Now after youve been raised up by the law your perspective is now dictated by righteous motivations and being righteous you actually can establish the law yourself because you have the same mindset as God as stated in this verse.


Romans 3

19Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.

20Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

21But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

22Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

23For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

24Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

25Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

26To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

27Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.

28Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

29Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:

30Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

31Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Theocrat
06-08-2011, 04:56 PM
Chuck Baldwin once wrote a great response to the Romans 13 argument.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/baldwin1.html
It seems that every time someone such as myself attempts to encourage our Christian brothers and sisters to resist an unconstitutional or otherwise reprehensible government policy, we hear the retort, "What about Romans Chapter 13? We Christians must submit to government. Any government. Read your Bible, and leave me alone." Or words to that effect.
No doubt, some who use this argument are sincere. They are only repeating what they have heard their pastor and other religious leaders say. On the other hand, let's be honest enough to admit that some who use this argument are just plain lazy, apathetic, and indifferent. And Romans 13 is their escape from responsibility. I suspect this is the much larger group, by the way.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of those who are sincere (but obviously misinformed), let's briefly examine Romans Chapter 13. I quote Romans Chapter 13, verses 1 through 7, from the Authorized King James text:
"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. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. 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: 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. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Do our Christian friends who use these verses to teach that we should not oppose President Bush or any other political leader really believe that civil magistrates have unlimited authority to do anything they want without opposition? I doubt whether they truly believe that.
For example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchal custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject's bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, "Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government"? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
By the same token, a civil magistrate has authority in civil matters, but his authority is limited and defined. Observe that Romans Chapter 13 clearly limits the authority of civil government by strictly defining its purpose: "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil . . . For he is the minister of God to thee for good . . . for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil."
Notice that civil government must not be a "terror to good works." It has no power or authority to terrorize good works or good people. God never gave it that authority. And any government that oversteps that divine boundary has no divine authority or protection.
Civil government is a "minister of God to thee for good." It is a not a minister of God for evil. Civil magistrates have a divine duty to "execute wrath upon him that doeth evil." They have no authority to execute wrath upon him that doeth good. None. Zilch. Zero. And anyone who says they do is lying. So, even in the midst of telling Christians to submit to civil authority, Romans Chapter 13 limits the power and reach of civil authority.
Did Moses violate God's principle of submission to authority when he killed the Egyptian taskmaster in defense of his fellow Hebrew? Did Elijah violate God's principle of submission to authority when he openly challenged Ahab and Jezebel? Did David violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to surrender to Saul's troops? Did Daniel violate God's principle of submission to authority when he disobeyed the king's law to not pray audibly to God? Did the three Hebrew children violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to bow to the image of the state? Did John the Baptist violate God's principle of submission to authority when he publicly scolded King Herod for his infidelity? Did Simon Peter and the other Apostles violate God's principle of submission to authority when they refused to stop preaching on the streets of Jerusalem? Did Paul violate God's principle of submission to authority when he refused to obey those authorities who demanded that he abandon his missionary work? In fact, Paul spent almost as much time in jail as he did out of jail.
Remember that every apostle of Christ (except John) was killed by hostile civil authorities opposed to their endeavors. Christians throughout church history were imprisoned, tortured, or killed by civil authorities of all stripes for refusing to submit to their various laws and prohibitions. Did all of these Christian martyrs violate God's principle of submission to authority?
So, even the great prophets, apostles, and writers of the Bible (including the writer of Romans Chapter 13) understood that human authority – even civil authority – is limited.
Plus, Paul makes it clear that our submission to civil authority must be predicated on more than fear of governmental retaliation. Notice, he said, "Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake." Meaning, our obedience to civil authority is more than just "because they said so." It is also a matter of conscience. This means we must think and reason for ourselves regarding the justness and rightness of our government's laws. Obedience is not automatic or robotic. It is a result of both rational deliberation and moral approbation.
Therefore, there are times when civil authority may need to be resisted. Either governmental abuse of power or the violation of conscience (or both) could precipitate civil disobedience. Of course, how and when we decide to resist civil authority is an entirely separate issue. And I will reserve that discussion for another time.
Beyond that, we in the United States of America do not live under a monarchy. We have no king. There is no single governing official in this country. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with any man or any group of men. America's "supreme Law" does not rest with the President, the Congress, or even the Supreme Court. In America, the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme Law of the Land." Under our laws, every governing official publicly promises to submit to the Constitution of the United States. Do readers understand the significance of this distinction? I hope so.
This means that in America the "higher powers" are not the men who occupy elected office, they are the tenets and principles set forth in the U.S. Constitution. Under our laws and form of government, it is the duty of every citizen, including our elected officials, to obey the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, this is how Romans Chapter 13 reads to Americans:
"Let every soul be subject unto the [U.S. Constitution.] For there is no [Constitution] but of God: the [Constitution] that be [is] ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the [Constitution], resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For [the Constitution is] not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the [Constitution]? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For [the Constitution] is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for [the Constitution] beareth not the sword in vain: for [the Constitution] is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause pay ye tribute also: for [the Constitution is] God's minister, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor."
Dear Christian friend, the above is exactly the proper understanding of our responsibility to civil authority in these United States, as per the teaching of Romans Chapter 13.


smdh........you don't even have to get all the way down to Mark or Romans......you can stop at Exodus in the 10 commandments which plainly state....THOU SHALT NOT STEAL...

One thing to notice in the Romans 13 passage is how it addresses those who under the authority of the civil magistrate. The instruction is towards the taxpayers to pay their taxes, and Paul expects his audience to do just that. However, nowhere does it give the civil magistrates the authority to initiate the collection of taxes by taking taxes directly from the income (personal property) of the taxpayer. The obligation is for individuals in society to initiate by paying their taxes (in obedience to the command), as long as those taxes go towards things which the civil government has the authority to execute, as which is laid out in the passage for "God's servants."

The way I reason it, if the civil magistrate arbitrarily takes taxes from your personal income, they are, in a sense, stealing from "your bag," or in other words, the fruits of your labor. Surely, the civil magistrates depend on the people to pay them for their services (root word in there: "serve," as in a servant), just as the people depend on the civil magistrate to protect their God-given rights by punishing evildoers who seek to usurp those rights in society. So, the civil government has the obligation to wait for taxpayers to give up of their income as faithful stewards and citizens towards the civil government. But taxpayers also have the responsibility to make sure the government only uses the money for things it is ordained to do, and when it doesn't, then the people or taxpayers have no reason to give up of their income towards an encroaching and greedy government.

Live_Free_Or_Die
06-08-2011, 07:29 PM
@ OP

What is the evidence the so called authorities are in fact God's servants?

Deborah K
06-08-2011, 07:47 PM
Please hesitate to speak for the Bible until you understand what it says about tyranny.

This. There is a higher authority than the state. If there were not, then America should have never claimed her independence from Britain. No one should ever flee from communist regimes. No one should have ever disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Laws. Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus.

Jesus was crucified on political charges. Paul wrote several of the letters in the Bible from jail. John of Patmos wrote the book of Revelation in exile. Higher powers rule over every soul including the governing authorities. Income tax is theft and slavery. Period.

AFPVet
06-08-2011, 08:10 PM
This. There is a higher authority than the state. If there were not, then America should have never claimed her independence from Britain. No one should ever flee from communist regimes. No one should have ever disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Laws. Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus.

Jesus was crucified on political charges. Paul wrote several of the letters in the Bible from jail. John of Patmos wrote the book of Revelation in exile. Higher powers rule over every soul including the governing authorities. Income tax is theft and slavery. Period.

+Rep.

heavenlyboy34
06-08-2011, 08:14 PM
This. There is a higher authority than the state. If there were not, then America should have never claimed her independence from Britain. No one should ever flee from communist regimes. No one should have ever disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Laws. Rosa Parks should have stayed in the back of the bus.

Jesus was crucified on political charges. Paul wrote several of the letters in the Bible from jail. John of Patmos wrote the book of Revelation in exile. Higher powers rule over every soul including the governing authorities. Income tax is theft and slavery. Period.
You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later. :( I'll try to +rep you later, Deb.

DisillusionedPatriot
06-08-2011, 08:35 PM
From Jonathan Mayhew's "A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers" :

"Here the apostle argues the duty of paying taxes, from this consideration, that those who perform the duty of rulers, are continually attending upon the public welfare. But how does this argument conclude for paying taxes to such princes as are continually endeavoring to ruin the public? And especially when such payment would facilitate and promote this wicked design! Render therefore to all their dues; tribute, to whom tribute is due; custom, to whom custom; fear, to whom fear; honor, to whom honor. Here the apostle sums up what he had been saying concerning the duty of subjects to rulers. And his argument stands thus--"Since magistrates who execute their office well, are common benefactors to society; and may, in that respect, be properly stiled the ministers and ordinance of God; and since they are constantly employed in the service of the public; it becomes you to pay them tribute and custom; and to reverence, honor, and submit to, them in the execution of their respective offices." This is apparently good reasoning. But does this argument conclude for the duty of paying tribute, custom, reverence, honor and obedience, to such persons as (although they bear the title of rulers) use all their power to hurt and injure the public? such as are not God's ministers, but satan's? such as do not take care of, and attend upon, the public interest, but their own, to the ruin of the public? that is, in short, to such as have no natural and just claim at all to tribute, custom, reverence, honor and obedience? It is to be hoped that those who have any regard to the apostle's character as an inspired writer, or even as a man of common understanding, will not represent him as reasoning in such a loose incoherent manner; and drawing conclusions which have not the least relation to his premises. For what can be more absurd than an argument thus framed? "Rulers are, by their office, bound to consult the public welfare and the good of society: therefore you are bound to pay them tribute, to honor, and to submit to them, even when they destroy the public welfare, and are a common pest to society, by acting in direct contradiction to the nature and end of their office."

Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not intitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle.

I now add, farther, that the apostle's argument is so far from proving it to be the duty of people to obey, and submit to, such rulers as act in contradiction to the public good, and so to the design of their office, that it proves the direct contrary."

Southron
06-08-2011, 08:48 PM
I got some good responses from the Chat, but I was wondering what the rest of you think about this?



I ran into it while arguing with someone about why the income tax = redistribution of wealth and therefore theft.


My main points against it were that 1) The Bible is not the law of the land, The Constitution is and that 2) the idea is not an American or Free Market value but instead a Socialist value called for in the Communist Manifesto.

Personally, I have no biblical problems paying income tax, and I willingly submit in that area. I may disagree with income taxes as a method of funding government but can't find any reason that would allow myself to refuse to pay.

The government may find all sorts of ungodly uses for the taxes but let them be guilty for it. My conscience is clear and I have a duty to provide for my family, which I would not be able to do from prison, nor do I feel that I would be furthering the kingdom of God by becoming known as a tax cheat.

That being said, I will fight income taxes politically with all of you but if it comes to civil disobedience, family duties come first.

If you can justify not paying income taxes biblically, that's a matter of conscience and between you and God. I am just not convinced.

satchelmcqueen
06-08-2011, 09:13 PM
i didnt read all the posts but i dont believe in any tax, Christianity involved or not. i think that argument is stupid.

ifthenwouldi
06-08-2011, 11:08 PM
Personally, I have no biblical problems paying income tax, and I willingly submit in that area. I may disagree with income taxes as a method of funding government but can't find any reason that would allow myself to refuse to pay.

The government may find all sorts of ungodly uses for the taxes but let them be guilty for it. My conscience is clear and I have a duty to provide for my family, which I would not be able to do from prison, nor do I feel that I would be furthering the kingdom of God by becoming known as a tax cheat.

That being said, I will fight income taxes politically with all of you but if it comes to civil disobedience, family duties come first.

If you can justify not paying income taxes biblically, that's a matter of conscience and between you and God. I am just not convinced.

Thank you for this post, brother. I've been struggling a bit with this issue and your post gave me some clarity.

AFPVet
06-09-2011, 09:59 AM
Personally, I have no biblical problems paying income tax, and I willingly submit in that area. I may disagree with income taxes as a method of funding government but can't find any reason that would allow myself to refuse to pay.

The government may find all sorts of ungodly uses for the taxes but let them be guilty for it. My conscience is clear and I have a duty to provide for my family, which I would not be able to do from prison, nor do I feel that I would be furthering the kingdom of God by becoming known as a tax cheat.

That being said, I will fight income taxes politically with all of you but if it comes to civil disobedience, family duties come first.

If you can justify not paying income taxes biblically, that's a matter of conscience and between you and God. I am just not convinced.

I don't think anyone is advocating tax delinquency here though... we are simply pointing out that an income tax is theft—and that the governments who support such a tax are committing sin. Likewise, property taxes are the same situation.

Zippyjuan
06-10-2011, 01:34 PM
Not sure if I was that clear earlier, but another attempt to say what I think the Bible was trying to say. It is my take that in Mark, Jesus was saying that there are two sets of laws- those of man and those of God. Religions of all types have been persecuted at varous points throughout their histories and if you want to avoid persecution, it is best to follow the laws of man- if Ceasar wants taxes, pay those taxes. This is why Paul wrote to obey civil leaders. It is not to say if any government is good or bad. Follow man's rules but also follow Gods rules- God's being the most important. Honor all your commitments- whether it is taxation or respect or honor. Live a rightous life.